On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 16:15, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is > > > unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to > > > behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should > > > ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to > > > have an interest in the subsystem in particular. > > > > > > Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in > > > QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user > > > base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages, > > > let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such > > > as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if > > > they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also, > > > mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release. > > > > > > > Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't > > see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden > > maintenance effort. > > > > Can I take this as an ack on > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230215100008.2565237-1-ardb@xxxxxxxxxx/ > I would not have considered myself important enough to make such a call, but from a testbed maintainer's perspective it is an enthusiastic yes. At the same time, again from a testbed maintainer's perspective, introducing a new "dead" state into the code base deserves a just as enthusiastic NACK. Thanks, Guenter > ? > > > If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file > > for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails > > to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports > > for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test > > beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead, > > remove it, period. > > > > For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch > > made it in, following the guidance above. > > > > Thanks for the insight. I think we should take the immediate removal route.
|