Re: [PATCH 00/13] tools: do cleanups related to libxc python bindings

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 13:30 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 16/11/15 13:09, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 13:01 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:19:24PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > On 10/23/2015 03:04 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > > This series is a combination of my previous patches:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "libxc: remove most of tools/libxc/xc_dom_compat_linux.c"
> > > > > "tools: remove unused wrappers for python"
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have split it up as requested by Ian Campbell, thus it consists
> > > > > of
> > > > > 13 patches instead just of 2, but the functionality is roughly
> > > > > the
> > > > > same. I have just kept more python bindings compared to the first
> > > > > version, as there have been reports of some out of tree uses.
> > > > > Asking
> > > > > for more such use case on xen-devel and xen-user didn't result in
> > > > > requests for more interfaces to be kept, so I delete them.
> > > > 
> > > > There have been acks and critical responses regarding this series.
> > 
> > Have there? I don't have the stashed alongside the series as I would
> > normally, so maybe I've missed them?
> 
> At least on #xendevel there was a rather clear statement towards not
> removing code without any need, even if unused. This statement has not
> been rejected by others.

Part of me thinks that such statements made on #xendevel may as well not
have been made as far as the formal review process goes.

But...

> I still think the python wrappers used by nobody are something we
> should get rid of, OTOH I don't want to fight really hard for it. :-)

... I think this is the right approach when dealing with such removals,
i.e. to try and abort upon valid complaints.

Ian.