Re: undeprecate raw driver.

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

Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 13.05.2007 22:10 schrieb Stefan Richter:
>> So why don't we simply say:
>>
>>   - "Users of feature A are urged to migrate to alternative B."
>>   - "Feature C will be removed in February 2038."
> 
> Because that's too long to add to a Kconfig tag line.
> You need a terse label there.

Then put "DEPRECATED" there, because you deprecate the enabling of the
option.

However, actual users of such a kernel option need the full explanation
of what's wrong with the option in order to decide whether to switch it
off.  The terse label alone is *insufficient*.   It's insufficient even
if you develop a scheme with two or more different labels for different
flavors of deprecation.  In fact, generically defined finer-grained
flavors of "deprecated" will be too fine-grained to be sensibly used in
/real/ feature removal processes.

It doesn't lead us anywhere to discuss about deprecation on an abstract
level.  Discuss concrete features (like the raw driver) with the people
who used that feature --- only then you get to know how to proceed with
that feature appropriately.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= -===-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/