[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46D94252.3000505@garzik.org>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:43:30 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
CC: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my!
Stefan Richter wrote:
> But I can state requirements for the 'experimental' marker, from the POV
> of a volunteer driver support guy:
> - Show it in big letters in the Kconfig prompt of an experimental
> feature.
> - Explain at appropriate place(s) what the particular caveats of the
> feature are.
> That's it. I am not aware of a need to evaluate this marker in routines
> which calculate the .config, unlike the 'broken' marker.
Correct.
> BTW, the requirements of communication in feature removal processes are
> similar to a degree. But feature removal involves more active two-way
> communication and is tied to a schedule.
'deprecated' and 'obsolete' are very different beasts from the other
statuses. They are largely just a marker of opinion of the developer,
and are largely treated as synonyms.
Code that was never marked deprecated nor obsolete often appears in
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt, and eventually gets removed.
Feature deprecation and removal is a very amorphous concept that does
not fit well at all into Kconfig markers, unlike experimental/broken.
Jeff
-
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