Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 May 2004 15:14:16 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [patch] kill off PC9800 |
| |
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:21:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com> wrote: > > > > Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote: > > > > > > PC9800 sub-arch is incomplete, hackish (at least in IDE), maintainers > > > don't reply to emails and haven't touched it in awhile. > > > > And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it? Does anyone know when they were > > last manufactured, and how popular they are? > > > > Hey, just being obsolete is no grounds for eliminating a > > subarchitecture... > > Well it's a question of whether we're likely to see increasing demand for > it in the future. If so then it would be prudent to put some effort into > fixing it up rather than removing it. > > Seems that's not the case. I don't see a huge rush on this but if after > this discussion nobody steps up to take care of the code over the next few > weeks, it's best to remove it.
Perhaps a nicer way to do this is to add a compile warning or error:
#warning "arch/i386/mach-pc9800 unmaintained since xx/xx/xx, nominated for removal xx/xx/xx if unclaimed"
..where the second date is, say, 3+ months after the warning goes in. Then people can nominate stuff for removal with one liners and users will get ample opportunity to complain.
-- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |