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

["John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@j-a-k-j.com>]

> >> 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*!!!"
> 
> You are absolutely right.
> 
> 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.