Am 25.02.2007 11:42 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> On Wed 2007-02-21 00:12:28, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 20.02.2007 23:52 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>> "deprecated" means that there *is* a complete replacement available
>>> *right now* and you should consider switching to it.
>>>
>>> if you can't offer
On Wed 2007-02-21 00:12:28, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 20.02.2007 23:52 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
> > "deprecated" means that there *is* a complete replacement available
> > *right now* and you should consider switching to it.
> >
> > if you can't offer someone a completely functional, better
On Wed 2007-02-21 00:12:28, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 20.02.2007 23:52 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
deprecated means that there *is* a complete replacement available
*right now* and you should consider switching to it.
if you can't offer someone a completely functional, better alternative
Am 25.02.2007 11:42 schrieb Pavel Machek:
On Wed 2007-02-21 00:12:28, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 20.02.2007 23:52 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
deprecated means that there *is* a complete replacement available
*right now* and you should consider switching to it.
if you can't offer someone a
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 20.02.2007 23:52 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
> > "deprecated" means that there *is* a complete replacement available
> > *right now* and you should consider switching to it.
> >
> > if you can't offer someone a completely functional, better
Am 20.02.2007 23:52 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
> "deprecated" means that there *is* a complete replacement available
> *right now* and you should consider switching to it.
>
> if you can't offer someone a completely functional, better alternative
> to what they're using now, then you can't say
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:47:43PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > 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
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 20 February 2007 17:27, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> > 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
>
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:47:43PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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
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
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 17:27, 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
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
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
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 17:27, 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,
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
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 17:27, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
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
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:47:43PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
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
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:47:43PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
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
Am 20.02.2007 23:52 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
deprecated means that there *is* a complete replacement available
*right now* and you should consider switching to it.
if you can't offer someone a completely functional, better alternative
to what they're using now, then you can't say that what
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 20.02.2007 23:52 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
deprecated means that there *is* a complete replacement available
*right now* and you should consider switching to it.
if you can't offer someone a completely functional, better alternative
to what
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would it be possible to get this patch merged
> (or at least DEPRECATED part of it)?
>
> I think that the patch is useful and that the distinction between
> DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE options is quite clear:
>
> * DEPRECATED == new
Hi,
Would it be possible to get this patch merged
(or at least DEPRECATED part of it)?
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 ==
Add two new maturity levels of DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE to the kbuild
structure.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
one more time, i'll see if i can get this into the main tree, since
previous attempts just seem to disappear into the void, even though
several people
Add two new maturity levels of DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE to the kbuild
structure.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
one more time, i'll see if i can get this into the main tree, since
previous attempts just seem to disappear into the void, even though
several people
Hi,
Would it be possible to get this patch merged
(or at least DEPRECATED part of it)?
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 ==
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Hi,
Would it be possible to get this patch merged
(or at least DEPRECATED part of it)?
I think that the patch is useful and that the distinction between
DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE options is quite clear:
* DEPRECATED == new better code
26 matches
Mail list logo
