From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263460AbUERUO1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2004 16:14:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263483AbUERUO1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2004 16:14:27 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:44205 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263460AbUERUOZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2004 16:14:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:14:16 -0500 From: Matt Mackall To: Andrew Morton Cc: James Bottomley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Randy.Dunlap" Subject: Re: [patch] kill off PC9800 Message-ID: <20040518201416.GT5414@waste.org> References: <1084729840.10938.13.camel@mulgrave> <20040516142123.2fd8611b.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040516142123.2fd8611b.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:21:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > > > Randy.Dunlap" 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 And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it?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. -- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting