[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46386917.10704@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 12:33:59 +0200
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@...-k-j.com>
CC: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Andre Tomt <andre@...t.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: so ... what *are* candidates for removal?
John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
[I wrote]
>> BTW, of course it doesn't suffice to say "we can't remove it yet" after
>> the due day. There need to be well-founded reasons for another
>> deferral.
[...]
> So when this sort of thing comes up, why can't somebody put together a
> trivial patch to update feature-removal-schedule.txt? If a deadline is
> reached, and a removal is attempted and aborted, the deadline should be
> extended, obviously. So then the patches can be resubmitted (or recreated,
> even) when the new deadline is reached, da capo.
<stating_the_obvious>
Yes, of course. When a decision is reached to defer or even abort a
feature removal process, the maintainer in charge should take care that
such an updating patch goes to feature-removal-schedule.txt.
So if there are outdated entries in feature-removal-schedule.txt, then
it's because someone forgot something, and it won't hurt to ask the
responsible person if he knows of a change in the removal plan.
</stating_the_obvious>
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= ---=-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists