On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 7:05 PM Andre Przywara <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:13:44 -0400 > Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > thanks for the heads up, somehow the original email didn't reach me. > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 04:50:34PM +0900, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote: > > > > > I no longer maintain them. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: FUKAUMI Naoki <[email protected]> > > > > Thanks for your time on these platforms. > > > > Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <[email protected]> > > > > Andre, Jagan, which one of you wants to pick these up? I assume you > > don't want to drop the defconfigs themselves. > > To be honest, I am more inclined to delete that whole file. Given its age > and the (natural and understandable) volatility of engagement for those > boards I don't think there is much actual information in there anymore than > "person originally submitted the *_defconfig" (which we have in the git > log). > For instance I think that Hans retreated from day-to-day sunxi > engagement years ago, and I wonder if he even still possesses all of these > boards listed under his name - which was more of a catch-all anyway, IIUC. > > So it's either that (which is certainly easier), or I write to everyone on > the list and ask for an update on the support situation. Because I also > feel that only a small fraction of these boards receives some testing, so > wouldn't be surprised to find many of them broken for a while - given the > refactoring we did lately. > > But please note that I don't intend to drop any of the defconfigs > unnecessarily, so just because we *believe* they are unsupported. > > Any opinions?
What if we categorize the defconfigs into active and inactive based on the maintainer's activites and give them some release threshold to drop or mark it (re)active like we did it for DM conversion? Thanks, Jagan.
