From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29530 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2014 18:59:30 -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 29519 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2014 18:59:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:59:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8AIxMMb021135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:59:22 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8AIxKtZ013095; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:59:21 -0400 Message-ID: <54109F88.9090405@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:59:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand , Joel Brobecker CC: GDB Patches Subject: New deprecation procedure References: <201409101635.s8AGZrEC010511@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201409101635.s8AGZrEC010511@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 On 09/10/2014 05:35 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Joel Brobecker wrote: > >> 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. Thanks, Pedro Alves