On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:35:07 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > I think that the patch is useful and that the distinction between > > DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE options is quite clear: > > > > * DEPRECATED == new better code is available, old code scheduled for removal > > > > * OBSOLETE == no replacement yet but the code is broken by design > > and unreliable, not scheduled for removal yet > > Is that really the consensus on these definitions? I thought it was > more or less the opposite: > > * DEPRECATED == no (complete) replacement available yet, but it has > been decided that this code is less than optimal and alternatives > should be preferred > > * OBSOLETE == replacement available, no reason to use this code anymore
those original definitions above are not quite the way i worded it. please consult the submitted patch to see how i phrased it. in a nutshell, my idea of deprecated is: perhaps still supported, still being used, but there is a better alternative available right now and you should consider switching at your convenience. obsolete means dead/unsupported/use at own risk. might still work but no guarantees and could be removed at any time. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/