Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: "obsolete" versus "deprecated", and a new config option? | | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | | Date | Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:54:03 -0500 | |
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:51:27 EST, "Robert P. J. Day" said:
>> in any event, what about introducing a new config variable,
> OBSOLETE, under "Code maturity level options"? this would seem to be
> a quick and dirty way to prune anything that is *supposed* to be
> obsolete from the build, to make sure you're not picking up dead code
> by accident.
>
> i think it would be useful to be able to make that kind of
> distinction since, as the devfs writer pointed out above, the point of
> labelling something "obsolete" is not to *discourage* someone from
> using a feature, it's to imply that they *shouldn't* be using that
> feature. period. which suggests there should be an easy, one-step
> way to enforce that absolutely in a build.
How much of the 'OBSOLETE' code should just be labelled 'BROKEN' instead?
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |