Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my!

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2007, you wrote:
>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>
>>>> Feature deprecation and removal is a very amorphous concept that
>>>> does not fit well at all into Kconfig markers, unlike
>>>> experimental/broken.
> 
> The current approach (text file) is:
> * centralized
> * requires manual testing of all future changes
> * totally invisible to the end-users (higly frustrating for them when
>   they learn about scheduled changes when things brake)
> 
> The proposed approach (Kconfig) is:
> * distributed
> * allows partial automatic testing of future changes
> * could be make visible to the end-users by smart use of macros/inlines
>   and adding kernel parameter (would make users informed and encourage
>   them to help with the development)
> 
>>> and, as i've said before, i disagree.  while one might debate what
>> Feel free to disagree -- I am describing how things play out on a day to 
>> day basis.  In essence you are disagreeing with reality.
> 
> Part of the problem is that many people (including developers) learn about
> things being deprecated/obsoleted after they are actually removed.
> 
> Of course things are not black and white and common sense is required but
> moving in the Kconfig direction is an improvement IMO and could speed up
> the development in the long-term.
> 
> BTW There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the reality and trying
> to change it.  If everybody would conform to the reality there will be no
> progress at all... ;)

I have --no problem-- with changes that enable people to disable 
deprecated/obsolete stuff, just like experimental and broken stuff.

I do have a problem with mischaracterization of today's reality.

	Jeff