Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754155AbXIAJP0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:15:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752315AbXIAJPP (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:15:15 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:53964 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752247AbXIAJPN (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:15:13 -0400 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <46D92D8E.9020508@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:14:54 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070807 SeaMonkey/1.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Robert P. J. Day" CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my! References: <46D89800.8080701@s5r6.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1751 Lines: 42 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > *attributes* would be orthogonal to one another -- the values *within* > an attribute would be mutually exclusive. Ah, right. ... > with regard to "experimental", what attribute would you imagine it > would be a possible value for, and what other possible values might > that attribute have as opposed to experimental? In the context of kernel features, "experimental" doesn't mean that developers are conducting experiments, but rather that users may use it for experimental purposes. Kernel packagers/ distributors/ admins/ users are advised that this feature is not for use in production (for whatever reasons, e.g. proof-testing not completed, known instability, lack of compatibility, missing features). I have no advise into which attribute to put this and which alternative values that attribute could assume. But I can state requirements for the 'experimental' marker, from the POV of a volunteer driver support guy: - Show it in big letters in the Kconfig prompt of an experimental feature. - Explain at appropriate place(s) what the particular caveats of the feature are. That's it. I am not aware of a need to evaluate this marker in routines which calculate the .config, unlike the 'broken' marker. BTW, the requirements of communication in feature removal processes are similar to a degree. But feature removal involves more active two-way communication and is tied to a schedule. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =--= ----= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/