Re: so ... what *are* candidates for removal?

[Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>]

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So if there are outdated entries in feature-removal-schedule.txt, then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/