On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 22:23 +0000, Peter Stuge wrote: > Martin Roth via coreboot wrote: > > 1) Please don't use the term deprecate - use "moved to a branch" > > I don't think the wording matters, my points are discoverability and > drive-by maintainance. > > > > If a platform is perfect and doesn't need to be updated, it doesn't > > need to be on the master branch, right? > > I think wrong, because being on master is the only chance to receive > tree-wide changes, e.g. through coccinelle spatches or sed:its. > > Missing those rots the code quicker so yes, something getting moved > to a non-master branch is de-facto deprecation by degradation to > second class.
Maintaining without ability to test will make it degrade, too. > > > > I absolutely agree that if something isn't being used, it doesn't > > need to be maintained on the master branch. > > I disagree. > > > > I just want to make sure that things actually aren't being used > > before moving them to a branch. > > I think "no usage" alone should be a very weak motivator to move > something from master, just like "no availability". > > (Many SOCs are currently unavailable and will remain so for some time!) It's not unavailable for *some time* but forever, bc it's not being produced anymore. > > If code is perfect or nearly perfect then why move it? > > If there are *concrete* issues with code then I think it would be > reasonable for *that* to count much more than "no/unknown usage", > but the current proposal did not reference any such issues, Paul's > ask didn't yield any and neither did mine. Not used => not tested. > > > //Peter > _______________________________________________ > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
