[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080212224433.GA9063@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:44:33 -0500
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, trond.myklebust@....uio.no,
greg@...ah.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:06:17PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> There is maybe a middle ground in this -next idea; as very first
> part of the series, the new api gets added, current users converted
> and api marked __deprecated.
>
> Then there's a second part to the patch, which is a separate tree,
> which gets added at the very end, which removed the old api.
>
> Both will go in at the same merge window, and the next-meister needs
> to track that no new users show up... but the final tree allows this
> to be done somewhat more gentle.
>
> Doesn't work for API changes that just change the API rather than
> extending it, and doesn't solve the dependency issues. So I still
> think a cleansweep works best in general, but I suspect Andrew just
> disagrees with that.
Yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting. The __deprecate only lasts
for the merge window, and we remove the old API at the end of the
merge window. So it's only there for a very short time, and it's only
there to make the cleen sweep a little less painful --- not one where
"shit hangs around in the tree forever".
- Ted
--
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