Re: removing existing working drivers via staging

[Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 09:32:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu 2009-10-15 09:47:26, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 09:39:51AM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
> > > > however, what I think I saw proposed was to move drivers that need to be 
> > > > 'cleaned up', to staging and then dropping them if they don't get cleaned.
> > > 
> > > What is "proposed" is the following:
> > > 
> > > 	- For drivers currently in the kernel tree, that the subsystem
> > > 	  maintainer, for whatever reason, feels is obsolete / broken /
> > > 	  needs major cleaning / wants to get rid of, can be submitted
> > > 	  to the staging maintainer to be moved to the drivers/staging/
> > > 	  directory.
> > > 	- For a file to be moved into this directory, all of the normal
> > > 	  staging rules apply, including most importantly, a TODO file
> > > 	  listing what needs to be done to the driver in order for it to
> > > 	  be moved back into the main portion of the kernel tree.
> > > 	- If, after a period of 3 releases, no work has been done on the
> > > 	  driver by anyone, the driver will be removed from the staging
> > > 	  tree, just like all drivers in the staging tree.
> > > 
> > > Note, as always, if a driver wants to come back from removal of the
> > > staging tree, a simple email to the staging maintainer, along with the
> > > promise that work will be done, is all it takes to resurrect it.
> > > 
> > > Sound good?
> > > 
> > > Now, where to put these "rules"?  Any suggestions?
> > 
> > I'm not sure it sounds good. It should not be named 'staging' at 
> > least.
> 
> Why not? It's a good match - a driver gets staged because it's not fit 
> for upstream.
> 
> The usual staging rules apply regardless of where the driver came from 
> (outside or inside the kernel): someone has to care about it and it has 
> to be fixed.

Exactly, I'll keep the name for now, it's easier that way.

thanks,

greg k-h