On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 07:16:35PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > 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?
Orphaned / unmaintained defconfigs are a CI failure normally, they just aren't right this moment because that got broken a while back (and so I'm trying to fix that now, and prevent new breakage from coming in). -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
