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So if there are outdated entries in feature-removal-schedule.txt, then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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
