Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754313AbXIAJdW (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:33:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751011AbXIAJdO (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:33:14 -0400 Received: from nic.NetDirect.CA ([216.16.235.2]:33822 "EHLO rubicon.netdirect.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751291AbXIAJdN (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:33:13 -0400 X-Originating-Ip: 72.143.66.27 Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:21:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost.localdomain To: Stefan Richter cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my! In-Reply-To: <46D92D8E.9020508@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Message-ID: References: <46D89800.8080701@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <46D92D8E.9020508@s5r6.in-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-16.8, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -15.00, INIT_RECVD_OUR_AUTH -20.00, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 20.00) X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-From: rpjday@mindspring.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2083 Lines: 53 On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Stefan Richter wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > *attributes* would be orthogonal to one another -- the values > > *within* an attribute would be mutually exclusive. > > Ah, right. great, we got that cleared up. onward. > 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. at this point, i'm not sure either. given the possible interpretations of EXPERIMENTAL that i hadn't considered until now, maybe it really *does* make sense to tag something as both EXPERIMENTAL and, say, DEPRECATED (does it?). that suggests you might want to have two orthogonal attributes: maturity: untagged/normal, DEPRECATED, OBSOLETE quality(?): untagged/normal, EXPERIMENTAL, BROKEN obviously, maturity would represent the position in the normal life span of a feature as it progresses from useful to obsolete, while quality would identify its perceived quality of code. and those would (clearly?) be two independent attributes you could apply to any feature, and be able to select independently. anyway, this is sort of covered in my earlier post from this morning. i think. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca ======================================================================== - 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/