On Fri, 5 May 2023, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > Most of the 2.4 code has indeed been deleted *from current kernels*. Is it okay to delete old code from -stable kernels? > It's not clear to me why 2.4 documentation should be immune to that same > process. My message argued for removing 2.5 documentation and retaining the link that gives credit to prior contributions. > If we keep every 20-year-old reference, our docs will be even cruftier > and less useful than they are now. > Since you're obviously being facetious, it's tempting to respond that "churn is good because it reduces the average age of the code". But that kind of exchange gets us nowhere. I'd be curious to see an age histogram of the commentary in the source code in the mainline kernel repository (or any other long-lived project). I wonder if that has ever been measured.
