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 alte
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
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
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 y
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 is
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 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 avai
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 replacem
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 bette
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 == no
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 seem
13 matches
Mail list logo