From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11268 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2014 08:51:31 -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 11258 invoked by uid 89); 12 Sep 2014 08:51:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com Received: from e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.107) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:51:29 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:51:26 +0100 Received: from d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.13) by e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.141) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:51:24 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFEE17D8047 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:53:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s8C8pOMm38207628 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:51:24 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s8C8pNSO027256 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 02:51:23 -0600 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id s8C8pLtW027222; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 02:51:21 -0600 Message-Id: <201409120851.s8C8pLtW027222@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:51:21 +0200 Subject: Re: New deprecation procedure To: brobecker@adacore.com (Joel Brobecker) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:51:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: palves@redhat.com (Pedro Alves), gdb-patches@sourceware.org (GDB Patches) In-Reply-To: <20140911190348.GA30710@adacore.com> from "Joel Brobecker" at Sep 11, 2014 12:03:48 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14091208-5024-0000-0000-0000014443F5 X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00385.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: > 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. Makes sense to me. Thanks, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com