Daniel Walker | 1 Dec 2011 21:25

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: msm: Remove MSM7x00 support

On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 20:19 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Now, the obvious question to ask now is this: as you sent your question,
> and Daniel obviously objects, was Daniel one of your respondants?  If
> not, then he carries some of the blame for this patch being created
> in the first place by having missed the email/not replied/etc.
> 

What if the people using the hardware aren't even on the list ? It's not
their fault is it?

Daniel

Russell King - ARM Linux | 1 Dec 2011 21:35
Picon

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: msm: Remove MSM7x00 support

On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:25:47PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 20:19 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Now, the obvious question to ask now is this: as you sent your question,
> > and Daniel obviously objects, was Daniel one of your respondants?  If
> > not, then he carries some of the blame for this patch being created
> > in the first place by having missed the email/not replied/etc.
> > 
> 
> What if the people using the hardware aren't even on the list ? It's not
> their fault is it?

Did you notice I mentioned six months?

The way to remove non-broken code is:
1. to ask.  If no one responds, then
2. submit a patch to put an entry in feature-removal-schedule.txt giving a
   description of what will be removed and when - and then flag it
   with a patch to remove it.  If no one responds to that, then
3. the patch to remove it re-posted, and if no one objects it gets
   merged.

So, if people care about bits of code _and_ they're not on the relevant
subsystem mailing lists, they need to keep an eye on the feature removal
file - otherwise they're in for nasty surprises.
Daniel Walker | 1 Dec 2011 21:49

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: msm: Remove MSM7x00 support

On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 20:35 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:25:47PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 20:19 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Now, the obvious question to ask now is this: as you sent your question,
> > > and Daniel obviously objects, was Daniel one of your respondants?  If
> > > not, then he carries some of the blame for this patch being created
> > > in the first place by having missed the email/not replied/etc.
> > > 
> > 
> > What if the people using the hardware aren't even on the list ? It's not
> > their fault is it?
> 
> Did you notice I mentioned six months?

Yeah I did notice..

> The way to remove non-broken code is:
> 1. to ask.  If no one responds, then
> 2. submit a patch to put an entry in feature-removal-schedule.txt giving a
>    description of what will be removed and when - and then flag it
>    with a patch to remove it.  If no one responds to that, then
> 3. the patch to remove it re-posted, and if no one objects it gets
>    merged.
> 
> So, if people care about bits of code _and_ they're not on the relevant
> subsystem mailing lists, they need to keep an eye on the feature removal
> file - otherwise they're in for nasty surprises.

I agree with the steps, but I'm not sure David knows about (or would be
following) those steps. Not to mention these devices are still readily
(Continue reading)

Russell King - ARM Linux | 1 Dec 2011 22:03
Picon

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: msm: Remove MSM7x00 support

On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:49:58PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 20:35 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:25:47PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 20:19 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > Now, the obvious question to ask now is this: as you sent your question,
> > > > and Daniel obviously objects, was Daniel one of your respondants?  If
> > > > not, then he carries some of the blame for this patch being created
> > > > in the first place by having missed the email/not replied/etc.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > What if the people using the hardware aren't even on the list ? It's not
> > > their fault is it?
> > 
> > Did you notice I mentioned six months?
> 
> Yeah I did notice..
> 
> > The way to remove non-broken code is:
> > 1. to ask.  If no one responds, then
> > 2. submit a patch to put an entry in feature-removal-schedule.txt giving a
> >    description of what will be removed and when - and then flag it
> >    with a patch to remove it.  If no one responds to that, then
> > 3. the patch to remove it re-posted, and if no one objects it gets
> >    merged.
> > 
> > So, if people care about bits of code _and_ they're not on the relevant
> > subsystem mailing lists, they need to keep an eye on the feature removal
> > file - otherwise they're in for nasty surprises.
> 
> I agree with the steps, but I'm not sure David knows about (or would be
(Continue reading)

Daniel Walker | 1 Dec 2011 22:34

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: msm: Remove MSM7x00 support

On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 21:03 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:49:58PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 20:35 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:25:47PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 20:19 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > Now, the obvious question to ask now is this: as you sent your question,
> > > > > and Daniel obviously objects, was Daniel one of your respondants?  If
> > > > > not, then he carries some of the blame for this patch being created
> > > > > in the first place by having missed the email/not replied/etc.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What if the people using the hardware aren't even on the list ? It's not
> > > > their fault is it?
> > > 
> > > Did you notice I mentioned six months?
> > 
> > Yeah I did notice..
> > 
> > > The way to remove non-broken code is:
> > > 1. to ask.  If no one responds, then
> > > 2. submit a patch to put an entry in feature-removal-schedule.txt giving a
> > >    description of what will be removed and when - and then flag it
> > >    with a patch to remove it.  If no one responds to that, then
> > > 3. the patch to remove it re-posted, and if no one objects it gets
> > >    merged.
> > > 
> > > So, if people care about bits of code _and_ they're not on the relevant
> > > subsystem mailing lists, they need to keep an eye on the feature removal
> > > file - otherwise they're in for nasty surprises.
> > 
(Continue reading)


Gmane