[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: maturity and status and attributes, oh my!
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> *attributes* would be orthogonal to one another -- the values *within*
> an attribute would be mutually exclusive.

Ah, right.

> with regard to "experimental", what attribute would you imagine it
> would be a possible value for, and what other possible values might
> that attribute have as opposed to experimental?

In the context of kernel features, "experimental" doesn't mean that
developers are conducting experiments, but rather that users may use it
for experimental purposes. Kernel packagers/ distributors/ admins/
users are advised that this feature is not for use in production (for
whatever reasons, e.g. proof-testing not completed, known instability,
lack of compatibility, missing features).

I have no advise into which attribute to put this and which alternative
values that attribute could assume.

But I can state requirements for the 'experimental' marker, from the POV
of a volunteer driver support guy:
- Show it in big letters in the Kconfig prompt of an experimental
- Explain at appropriate place(s) what the particular caveats of the
feature are.
That's it. I am not aware of a need to evaluate this marker in routines
which calculate the .config, unlike the 'broken' marker.

BTW, the requirements of communication in feature removal processes are
similar to a degree. But feature removal involves more active two-way
communication and is tied to a schedule.
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =--= ----=
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-01 11:17    [W:0.047 / U:8.988 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site