Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 21:56:19 -0500 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: jmg@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Code removal - Was Re: Future of the ie(4) driver Message-ID: <20070706025619.GA19556@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20070706022631.GQ1221@funkthat.com> References: <200707051428.22766.jhb@freebsd.org> <200707052245.l65MjpmR055403@fire.js.berklix.net> <20070706022631.GQ1221@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. We can go crazy with policies. A sensible compromise is needed; the ports experience suggests that "sufficient notification" will make the least people unhappy (for some value of "sufficient"). 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. If we didn't have much more of the former than we have developer time to work on, I might be more sympathetic. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070706025619.GA19556>