On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 17:33 +0200, Niklas Nebel wrote: > On 05/04/09 16:52, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > > Inspired by this blog post by Caolan: > > > > http://blogs.linux.ie/caolan/2009/05/02/dev300_m47/ > > > > I would like to work on the 2nd round of unused code removal in sc > > module. > > Issue 95953 already has a patch removing some of them.
Ok. I'll start by applying that patch first. > > > I'd like to approach it in a way similar to how I did it in the first > > round, as follows: > > > > 1) comment out unused methods with //UNUSED_200905, and only remove > > those methods that are obviously not needed or very trivial to > > re-implement (i.e. methods that only have a few lines of code, methods > > that are file-scope local, methods that are used only for binfilter > > etc.). > > > > 2) remove methods that have been commented out during the previous > > removal effort (those prefixed with //UNUSED_200805). > > > > If there are no objections, I'd like to start this sometime soon. > > > > What do you think? > > I'd prefer to do the second step manually, i.e. after understanding why > a method was added once and why it is no longer needed. Well, I can skip step 2) this time around, since doing manual evaluation for all those unused methods would take more than I'm willing to spend time on at the moment. Having said that, I'm not sure if it's worth the time to evaluate every single one of unused methods. To me, if a method was commented out, and not resurrected for more than a year, then it's probably a sign that the method is not needed at all. If a one year time limit is too short, then perhaps setting a two-year time limit is a good compromise? Kohei --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
