From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9016 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2014 19:03:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 8932 invoked by uid 89); 11 Sep 2014 19:03:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:03:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F54F1164FE; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3oQGAibQcij0; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBE01164FC; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4AAE7477FF; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:03:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: Ulrich Weigand , GDB Patches Subject: Re: New deprecation procedure Message-ID: <20140911190348.GA30710@adacore.com> References: <201409101635.s8AGZrEC010511@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <54109F88.9090405@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54109F88.9090405@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 > >> So let's discuss the new obsoleting procedure, so we can document it: > >> > >> . I think that the first 4 steps (post email on gdb@, wait a week, > >> then on gdb-announce, wait another week) are fine. Anyone thinks > >> we should go straight to gdb-announce? > >> > >> My thinking is that people interested in maintaining a port > >> with enough skills to do so are likely to already be on gdb@, > >> so we can avoid sending an extra mail to gdb-announce. But > >> the traffic on gdb-announce being very low, and the frequency > >> at which we deprecate targets being fairly small as well, > >> I wouldn't object to a simpler procedure where we email > >> gdb-announce directly. > >> > >> . Remove steps 5 & 6 that mark the code as obsolete, only keeping > >> the last test, which removes the code. I'd add a note to add > >> a NEWS entry. > > > > Sounds all good to me. > > To me too. OK, thanks all! Wiki page updated accordingly. Sharing a thought that crossed my mind: I thought about increasing the amount of time we wait between steps, from 1 week to say, 2 weeks, giving anyone about a month to step up. I eventually dropped the idea because someone stepping up late should easily be able to revert the removal, particularly now that we've switched to git. In the meantime, since we suspect no-one is usually going to step up, waiting longer just defers the corresponding cleanups we want to do. If you guys agree with that, I'll add something to the wiki page to explain the thought process. -- Joel