Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 5 Jul 2007 21:56:19 -0500
From:      linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon)
To:        jmg@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Code removal - Was Re: Future of the ie(4) driver
Message-ID:  <20070706025619.GA19556@soaustin.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070706022631.GQ1221@funkthat.com>
References:  <200707051428.22766.jhb@freebsd.org> <200707052245.l65MjpmR055403@fire.js.berklix.net> <20070706022631.GQ1221@funkthat.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm sure even if we push it to a News item and send it out to
> -announce there'll be someone who said, "Why didn't I get a personally
> couriered letter to my home, my place of business and my vacation
> home?"

Although IMHO you are slightly overstating this, I will note that even
with a well-documented ports deprecation process (ports are tagged for
~2 months, notification emails are sent to ports@), there will always
be someone who doesn't get the message.  You cannot optimize for complete
notification.

We can go crazy with policies.  A sensible compromise is needed; the
ports experience suggests that "sufficient notification" will make the
least people unhappy (for some value of "sufficient").

Now I'll put on my bugmeister hat and say that I'd rather see see effort
devoted to clearing up PRs about hardware that is widespread, rather than
spending time on obsolete hardware.  If we didn't have much more of the
former than we have developer time to work on, I might be more sympathetic.

mcl



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070706025619.GA19556>