From: Jon Loeliger <hidden> Date: 2006-09-21 14:18:49
So, like, the other day Vivek Goyal mumbled:
Now with distros adopting kexce-tools, I am in for maintaining the backward
compatibility as far as possible. Putting a note in the code is good that
down the line, get rid of this code.
Perhaps scheduling it as an entry in
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
just so people (distros) can plan around it?
jdl
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:18:39AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
So, like, the other day Vivek Goyal mumbled:
quoted
Now with distros adopting kexce-tools, I am in for maintaining the backward
compatibility as far as possible. Putting a note in the code is good that
down the line, get rid of this code.
Perhaps scheduling it as an entry in
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
just so people (distros) can plan around it?
Perfect. In kexec-tools it can go in doc/feature-removal-schedule.txt.
-Vivek
From: Michael Neuling <hidden> Date: 2006-09-22 01:11:51
In message [off-list ref] you wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:18:39AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
quoted
So, like, the other day Vivek Goyal mumbled:
quoted
Now with distros adopting kexce-tools, I am in for maintaining the backwa
rd
quoted
quoted
compatibility as far as possible. Putting a note in the code is good that
down the line, get rid of this code.
Perhaps scheduling it as an entry in
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
just so people (distros) can plan around it?
Perfect. In kexec-tools it can go in doc/feature-removal-schedule.txt.
It doesn't really need to go in the kernel source as the kernel has
already changed and besides, we were adding a feature to the kernel, not
removing one.
At this stage, it's just a kexec tools feature removal.
Mikey
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:41:51AM +0930, Michael Neuling wrote:
In message [off-list ref] you wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:18:39AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
quoted
So, like, the other day Vivek Goyal mumbled:
quoted
Now with distros adopting kexce-tools, I am in for maintaining the backwa
rd
quoted
quoted
quoted
compatibility as far as possible. Putting a note in the code is good that
down the line, get rid of this code.
Perhaps scheduling it as an entry in
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
just so people (distros) can plan around it?
Perfect. In kexec-tools it can go in doc/feature-removal-schedule.txt.
It doesn't really need to go in the kernel source as the kernel has
already changed and besides, we were adding a feature to the kernel, not
removing one.
At this stage, it's just a kexec tools feature removal.
If someone wants to make a patch for kexec-tools I'm happy
to put it into kexec-tools-testing. Though I am a little dubious
about the possibilities of vendors taking any notice of it.
--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:41:51AM +0930, Michael Neuling wrote:
In message [off-list ref] you wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:18:39AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
quoted
So, like, the other day Vivek Goyal mumbled:
quoted
Now with distros adopting kexce-tools, I am in for maintaining the backwa
rd
quoted
quoted
quoted
compatibility as far as possible. Putting a note in the code is good that
down the line, get rid of this code.
Perhaps scheduling it as an entry in
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
just so people (distros) can plan around it?
Perfect. In kexec-tools it can go in doc/feature-removal-schedule.txt.
It doesn't really need to go in the kernel source as the kernel has
already changed and besides, we were adding a feature to the kernel, not
removing one.
At this stage, it's just a kexec tools feature removal.
Well, what I meant is that a similar file can go in kexec-tools/doc/ dir.
-Vivek