Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:41:45 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: jmg@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Code removal - Was Re: Future of the ie(4) driver Message-ID: <468E70C9.3030004@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20070706120806.GL38748@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <200707051428.22766.jhb@freebsd.org> <200707052245.l65MjpmR055403@fire.js.berklix.net> <20070706022631.GQ1221@funkthat.com> <20070706025619.GA19556@soaustin.net> <20070706120806.GL38748@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2007-Jul-05 21:56:19 -0500, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: >>> I'm sure even if we push it to a News item and send it out to >>> -announce there'll be someone who said, "Why didn't I get a personally >>> couriered letter to my home, my place of business and my vacation >>> home?" >> Although IMHO you are slightly overstating this, I will note that even >> with a well-documented ports deprecation process (ports are tagged for >> ~2 months, notification emails are sent to ports@), there will always >> be someone who doesn't get the message. You cannot optimize for complete >> notification. > > Agreed but I think a more "formal" deprecation process would be nice > for the core software. Possibly a 'deprecated' section in the release > notes (some commercial Unices do this) and maybe a 'deprecated' tag > for the relevant drivers in the hardware notes. Taking ie(4) as an > example, there's nothing in the man page, the 6.2 release notes or the > 6.2 hardware notes to suggest that this device won't be present in > future releases. > I think that before modules are deprecated that a formal call for users and supporters on -announce should be made. maybe someone might even put the call on slashdot :-) >> Now I'll put on my bugmeister hat and say that I'd rather see see effort >> devoted to clearing up PRs about hardware that is widespread, rather than >> spending time on obsolete hardware. > > I thoroughly agree. Pity that the very noisy minority who are loudly > complaining that 6.x won't run on their laptops but 4.x runs perfectly > aren't able to assist in moving FreeBSD forwards. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?468E70C9.3030004>