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

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>]

On Wed, 2 May 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:

> Regarding features that are overdue for removal according to
> feature-removal-schedule.txt:
>
> I remember that at least one person used to watch for due dates for
> feature removal, wrote the removing patches, and sent them to the
> appropriate lists and maintainers.  This either got rid of the
> obsolete stuff, or it turned up reasons why some feature could not
> be removed just yet and how to update feature-removal-schedule.txt
> to correctly reflect that.
>
> So, as they say, Patches Are Welcome.

that's a nice idea, but it doesn't address the problem that someone
might go to the trouble to create such a patch and send it in, only to
have that submission generate shrieking along the lines of "OHMIGOD,
we can't delete that *yet*!!!"

that's the whole point of this wiki page:

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Stuff_to_be_removed

it's meant for active participation to converge on a *consensus* as to
what should go and what shouldn't, *after* which the features removal
file can be updated appropriately and patches can start to be
generated.

it's incredibly wasteful to take the time to create and submit a
feature removal patch that ends up just *establishing* that something
shouldn't be deleted yet.  i'm sure most people here can think of
better things to do with their time.

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================