Re: [patch] kill off PC9800

[Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org>]

Matt Mackall wrote:

> On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:21:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
>>James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com> wrote:
>>
>>>    Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote:
>>>    >
>>>    >  PC9800 sub-arch is incomplete, hackish (at least in IDE), maintainers
>>>    >  don't reply to emails and haven't touched it in awhile.
>>>    
>>>    And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it?  Does anyone know when they were
>>>    last manufactured, and how popular they are?
>>>    
>>>Hey, just being obsolete is no grounds for eliminating a
>>>subarchitecture...
>>
>>Well it's a question of whether we're likely to see increasing demand for
>>it in the future.  If so then it would be prudent to put some effort into
>>fixing it up rather than removing it.
>>
>>Seems that's not the case.  I don't see a huge rush on this but if after
>>this discussion nobody steps up to take care of the code over the next few
>>weeks, it's best to remove it.
> 
> 
> Perhaps a nicer way to do this is to add a compile warning or error:
> 
> #warning "arch/i386/mach-pc9800 unmaintained since xx/xx/xx, nominated
> for removal xx/xx/xx if unclaimed"
> 
> ..where the second date is, say, 3+ months after the warning goes in.
> Then people can nominate stuff for removal with one liners and users
> will get ample opportunity to complain.
> 

You're missing the point that this code doesn't compile *at all*. 
Nobody would ever see the warning.

--
				Brian Gerst