From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754513AbXD2Aag (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:30:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754494AbXD2Aaf (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:30:35 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:46856 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754518AbXD2A3v (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:29:51 -0400 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <4633E6F8.3030402@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:29:44 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070408 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Robert P. J. Day" CC: Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: random thoughts on DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE References: <46337BD2.7000701@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <4633ACE4.50004@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <4633CA7F.6010505@s5r6.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Robert P. J. Day wrote: > * deprecated: while a feature is still supported, its use is > discouraged because there is a better alternative that you should > consider migrating to at your convenience. IOW "discouraged, no {mid,long}-term commitment, alternative available, supported" > * obsolete: while a feature is still in the tree, it is no longer > supported and no one should need it anymore, and everyone *should* be > using the better alternative at this point. IOW "discouraged, no {mid,long}-term commitment, alternative available, *un*supported" Note, that's different from http://kerneltrap.org/node/7593 --- the supported bit is new. Why would I officially support what I deprecate? Also, why don't we just adopt what "deprecated" and "obsolete" mean in real life? (English dictionaries say, one means "disapproved", the other means "outdated" or "no longer in use".) And if you don't find these meanings applicable, other terms should be chosen whose established meaning better matches what you want to express. [...] > there is an obvious timeline for features: > > normal -> deprecated -> obsolete That wasn't clear (to me) from your earlier definitions. IOW "normal" -> "obsolete and deprecated, phase 1" -> "obsolete and deprecated, phase 2" (using the real-life meanings of the terms here) with the fine distinction that there is still support available in phase 1, however curious that is. Besides, I find it unfeasible to divide a feature removal process into two phases. (I was involved in feature removals before and continue to be involved in them.) [...] > in any event, i don't want to drag this out too much longer. At least my pestering seems to lead to increasing precision in your wordings. And believe me, precision in a feature removal process is valuable for each party involved. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-- ===-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/