[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4624C320.3050206@imap.cc>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:52:48 +0200
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
CC: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
i4ldeveloper@...tserv.isdn4linux.de, Karsten Keil <kkeil@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: so what *is* obsolete and removable?
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:13:37 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:39:10 +0200 Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>
>> We *did* reach a consensus that isdn4linux is not obsolete in the
>> accepted sense of the word, because there is no replacement for it
>> so far.
>>
>> OTOH I have since submitted (twice, in fact) a patch that would remove
>> the "(obsolete)" label from the Kconfig entry, but somehow nothing
>> ever became of it. My submissions just linger in LKML, uncommented and
>> unmerged.
>
> Did you submit the patch to Andrew Morton?
No. The recipients I chose were Karsten Keil as the subsystem
maintainer, i4ldeveloper as the subsystem specific list, and LKML.
> Is the patch in the -mm patchset?
No. Should it be? It's not as if there was anything to test.
It's purely a textual change in Kconfig messages.
> Did Karsten ack the patch?
No. He hasn't replied at all.
> If the patch is in -mm and it's not critical (like this subject),
> then it probably won't be merged until after 2.6.21 is released...
Fine by me, as long as it does get merged eventually so I can stop
watching for attempts to remove isdn4linux as obsolete.
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (251 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists