Re: undeprecate raw driver.

Stefan Richter
2007-05-13T22:42:27Z

Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 13.05.2007 22:10 schrieb Stefan Richter:
>> So why don't we simply say:
>>
>> - "Users of feature A are urged to migrate to alternative B."
>> - "Feature C will be removed in February 2038."
>
> Because that's too long to add to a Kconfig tag line.
> You need a terse label there.

Then put "DEPRECATED" there, because you deprecate the enabling of the
option.

However, actual users of such a kernel option need the full explanation
of what's wrong with the option in order to decide whether to switch it
off. The terse label alone is *insufficient*. It's insufficient even
if you develop a scheme with two or more different labels for different
flavors of deprecation. In fact, generically defined finer-grained
flavors of "deprecated" will be too fine-grained to be sensibly used in
/real/ feature removal processes.

It doesn't lead us anywhere to discuss about deprecation on an abstract
level. Discuss concrete features (like the raw driver) with the people
who used that feature --- only then you get to know how to proceed with
that feature appropriately.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= -===-