From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Scheduled removals Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:44:51 +0100 Message-ID: <496C1C43.3060401@trash.net> References: <496AC7E4.6080204@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:47158 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756116AbZAMEox (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:44:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Monday 2009-01-12 05:32, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> as per Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt, some legacy code is ripe >>> for removal. Now while pursuing this I wondered whether the struct definitions >>> for the old code in the header files (e.g. in linux/netfilter/xt_CONNMARK.h) >>> can also be removed or whether people will argue that doing so would >>> unnecessarily cause dismay on behalf the potential users (of which there are >>> not any). I am not aware of any users, and neither is Search Engine Google, so >>> I'd just take the bait and kill it. Vetoes? >> Every time I'm searching I do find some users of at least some >> iptables headers. Maybe not this specific one, but that doesn't >> mean much, fact is there might be users. >> >> That being said, I'd be fine removing both the functionality >> and the headers after a sufficiently long period. I'm not >> really confident that the period has indeed be long enough >> though. When did we schedule this for removal? > > January 2008. OK, lets remove it in 2.6.30. At that point it should have been almost 1.5 years, which seems to be enough.