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

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

On Wed, 2 May 2007, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:

> stefan richter wrote:

> > We have to try to avoid this waste of resources when we put
> > features into feature-removal-schedule.txt.  That's what I meant
> > with "the hard part" in the other post.
> >
> > 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.  Of course if there are such reasons, it means
> > something went wrong when the feature was put into removal
> > schedule.  (Some facts weren't known.)
>
> 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.

argh.  the whole point of this discussion is to come to a *consensus*
on what should be in that feature removal file.  there is no point in
creating and submitting patches, either to update that file or remove
kernel features, until enough people *agree*.

at the risk of being head-bangingly repetitive, that's what the wiki
page is for:

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

go.  read.  comment.  update.  add.  remove.  it's a wiki.  don't make
me pull this car over and explain it.  :-)

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

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