Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:43:30 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my! |
| |
Stefan Richter wrote: > 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 > feature. > - 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.
Correct.
> 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.
'deprecated' and 'obsolete' are very different beasts from the other statuses. They are largely just a marker of opinion of the developer, and are largely treated as synonyms.
Code that was never marked deprecated nor obsolete often appears in Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt, and eventually gets removed.
Feature deprecation and removal is a very amorphous concept that does not fit well at all into Kconfig markers, unlike experimental/broken.
Jeff
- 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/
| |