From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9373 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2007 16:58:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 9364 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jan 2007 16:58:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:58:45 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l01GwPOF005540; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:58:25 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l01GwM2c012679; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:58:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200701011658.l01GwM2c012679@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb@sourceware.org, dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, brobecker@adacore.com In-reply-to: <20070101164622.GC13802@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:46:22 -0500) Subject: Re: Likely obsolete pieces of GDB References: <20061216205923.GA21428@nevyn.them.org> <20070101164622.GC13802@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:46:22 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > That leaves the items below. I propose that, when we've agreed on this > list, we (A) send the list to gdb-announce, (B) wait a few weeks for > feedback, and then (C) delete the files. At the same time, for removed > configurations we can add a blurb in configure which recognizes the > removed configurations and informs the user that support was removed. > > That's a pretty aggressive removal schedule, I realize. If folks are > uncomfortable with it, speak up, and we can come up with something > slower. But I don't want to invest too much time in issuing warnings > for code that we're pretty sure no one uses any more. I'm completely behind this proposal.