All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
@ 2023-01-28 12:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2023-01-28 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck,
	Jessica Clarke, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox,
	Marc Zyngier, Guenter Roeck, Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
have an interest in the subsystem in particular.

Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.

Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMj1kXEqbMEcrKYzz2-huLPMnotPoxFY8adyH=Xb4Ex8o98x-w@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
---
 MAINTAINERS | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 5b74014994f5c1cc..5481967c2112e8ce 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ Descriptions of section entries and preferred order
 	   Obsolete:	Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means
 			it has been replaced by a better system and you
 			should be using that.
+	   Dead:	Code has no maintainer and no significant user base,
+			and is scheduled for removal. Developers are free to
+			ignore it when it comes to testing bug fixes or other
+			code changes, and automated build test systems must not
+			report any detected issues, except possibly to mailing
+			lists or other recipients that have opted in
+			specifically to receiving reports about the state of
+			this code.
 	W: *Web-page* with status/info
 	Q: *Patchwork* web based patch tracking system site
 	B: URI for where to file *bugs*. A web-page with detailed bug
@@ -9833,7 +9841,7 @@ F:	include/linux/i3c/
 
 IA64 (Itanium) PLATFORM
 L:	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
-S:	Orphan
+S:	Dead # to be removed after the 2023 LTS release
 F:	Documentation/ia64/
 F:	arch/ia64/
 
-- 
2.39.0


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
@ 2023-01-28 12:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2023-01-28 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck,
	Jessica Clarke, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox,
	Marc Zyngier, Guenter Roeck, Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
have an interest in the subsystem in particular.

Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.

Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMj1kXEqbMEcrKYzz2-huLPMnotPoxFY8adyH=Xb4Ex8o98x-w@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
---
 MAINTAINERS | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 5b74014994f5c1cc..5481967c2112e8ce 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ Descriptions of section entries and preferred order
 	   Obsolete:	Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means
 			it has been replaced by a better system and you
 			should be using that.
+	   Dead:	Code has no maintainer and no significant user base,
+			and is scheduled for removal. Developers are free to
+			ignore it when it comes to testing bug fixes or other
+			code changes, and automated build test systems must not
+			report any detected issues, except possibly to mailing
+			lists or other recipients that have opted in
+			specifically to receiving reports about the state of
+			this code.
 	W: *Web-page* with status/info
 	Q: *Patchwork* web based patch tracking system site
 	B: URI for where to file *bugs*. A web-page with detailed bug
@@ -9833,7 +9841,7 @@ F:	include/linux/i3c/
 
 IA64 (Itanium) PLATFORM
 L:	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
-S:	Orphan
+S:	Dead # to be removed after the 2023 LTS release
 F:	Documentation/ia64/
 F:	arch/ia64/
 
-- 
2.39.0

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
  2023-01-28 12:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2023-02-15 10:19   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz @ 2023-02-15 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-kernel
  Cc: Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck, Jessica Clarke,
	Matthew Wilcox, Marc Zyngier, Guenter Roeck, Linus Torvalds,
	linux-ia64

Hello Ard!

On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 13:29 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
> unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
> behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
> ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
> have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
> 
> Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
> QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
> base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
> let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
> as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
> they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
> mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
> 
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> Cc: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
> Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMj1kXEqbMEcrKYzz2-huLPMnotPoxFY8adyH=Xb4Ex8o98x-w@mail.gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 5b74014994f5c1cc..5481967c2112e8ce 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ Descriptions of section entries and preferred order
>  	   Obsolete:	Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means
>  			it has been replaced by a better system and you
>  			should be using that.
> +	   Dead:	Code has no maintainer and no significant user base,
> +			and is scheduled for removal. Developers are free to
> +			ignore it when it comes to testing bug fixes or other
> +			code changes, and automated build test systems must not
> +			report any detected issues, except possibly to mailing
> +			lists or other recipients that have opted in
> +			specifically to receiving reports about the state of
> +			this code.
>  	W: *Web-page* with status/info
>  	Q: *Patchwork* web based patch tracking system site
>  	B: URI for where to file *bugs*. A web-page with detailed bug
> @@ -9833,7 +9841,7 @@ F:	include/linux/i3c/
>  
>  IA64 (Itanium) PLATFORM
>  L:	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
> -S:	Orphan
> +S:	Dead # to be removed after the 2023 LTS release
>  F:	Documentation/ia64/
>  F:	arch/ia64/

Sounds reasonable to me.

Acked-by: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
@ 2023-02-15 10:19   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz @ 2023-02-15 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-kernel
  Cc: Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck, Jessica Clarke,
	Matthew Wilcox, Marc Zyngier, Guenter Roeck, Linus Torvalds,
	linux-ia64

Hello Ard!

On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 13:29 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
> unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
> behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
> ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
> have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
> 
> Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
> QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
> base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
> let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
> as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
> they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
> mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
> 
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> Cc: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
> Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMj1kXEqbMEcrKYzz2-huLPMnotPoxFY8adyH=Xb4Ex8o98x-w@mail.gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 5b74014994f5c1cc..5481967c2112e8ce 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ Descriptions of section entries and preferred order
>  	   Obsolete:	Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means
>  			it has been replaced by a better system and you
>  			should be using that.
> +	   Dead:	Code has no maintainer and no significant user base,
> +			and is scheduled for removal. Developers are free to
> +			ignore it when it comes to testing bug fixes or other
> +			code changes, and automated build test systems must not
> +			report any detected issues, except possibly to mailing
> +			lists or other recipients that have opted in
> +			specifically to receiving reports about the state of
> +			this code.
>  	W: *Web-page* with status/info
>  	Q: *Patchwork* web based patch tracking system site
>  	B: URI for where to file *bugs*. A web-page with detailed bug
> @@ -9833,7 +9841,7 @@ F:	include/linux/i3c/
>  
>  IA64 (Itanium) PLATFORM
>  L:	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
> -S:	Orphan
> +S:	Dead # to be removed after the 2023 LTS release
>  F:	Documentation/ia64/
>  F:	arch/ia64/

Sounds reasonable to me.

Acked-by: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
  2023-01-28 12:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2023-02-15 15:15   ` Guenter Roeck
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2023-02-15 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ard Biesheuvel
  Cc: linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck,
	Jessica Clarke, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox,
	Marc Zyngier, Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
> unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
> behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
> ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
> have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
> 
> Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
> QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
> base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
> let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
> as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
> they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
> mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
> 

Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't
see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden
maintenance effort.

If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file
for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails
to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports
for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test
beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead,
remove it, period.

For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch
made it in, following the guidance above.

Guenter

> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> Cc: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
> Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMj1kXEqbMEcrKYzz2-huLPMnotPoxFY8adyH=Xb4Ex8o98x-w@mail.gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 5b74014994f5c1cc..5481967c2112e8ce 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ Descriptions of section entries and preferred order
>  	   Obsolete:	Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means
>  			it has been replaced by a better system and you
>  			should be using that.
> +	   Dead:	Code has no maintainer and no significant user base,
> +			and is scheduled for removal. Developers are free to
> +			ignore it when it comes to testing bug fixes or other
> +			code changes, and automated build test systems must not
> +			report any detected issues, except possibly to mailing
> +			lists or other recipients that have opted in
> +			specifically to receiving reports about the state of
> +			this code.
>  	W: *Web-page* with status/info
>  	Q: *Patchwork* web based patch tracking system site
>  	B: URI for where to file *bugs*. A web-page with detailed bug
> @@ -9833,7 +9841,7 @@ F:	include/linux/i3c/
>  
>  IA64 (Itanium) PLATFORM
>  L:	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
> -S:	Orphan
> +S:	Dead # to be removed after the 2023 LTS release
>  F:	Documentation/ia64/
>  F:	arch/ia64/
>  
> -- 
> 2.39.0
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
@ 2023-02-15 15:15   ` Guenter Roeck
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2023-02-15 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ard Biesheuvel
  Cc: linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck,
	Jessica Clarke, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox,
	Marc Zyngier, Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
> unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
> behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
> ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
> have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
> 
> Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
> QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
> base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
> let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
> as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
> they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
> mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
> 

Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't
see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden
maintenance effort.

If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file
for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails
to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports
for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test
beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead,
remove it, period.

For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch
made it in, following the guidance above.

Guenter

> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> Cc: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
> Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMj1kXEqbMEcrKYzz2-huLPMnotPoxFY8adyH=Xb4Ex8o98x-w@mail.gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 5b74014994f5c1cc..5481967c2112e8ce 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ Descriptions of section entries and preferred order
>  	   Obsolete:	Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means
>  			it has been replaced by a better system and you
>  			should be using that.
> +	   Dead:	Code has no maintainer and no significant user base,
> +			and is scheduled for removal. Developers are free to
> +			ignore it when it comes to testing bug fixes or other
> +			code changes, and automated build test systems must not
> +			report any detected issues, except possibly to mailing
> +			lists or other recipients that have opted in
> +			specifically to receiving reports about the state of
> +			this code.
>  	W: *Web-page* with status/info
>  	Q: *Patchwork* web based patch tracking system site
>  	B: URI for where to file *bugs*. A web-page with detailed bug
> @@ -9833,7 +9841,7 @@ F:	include/linux/i3c/
>  
>  IA64 (Itanium) PLATFORM
>  L:	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
> -S:	Orphan
> +S:	Dead # to be removed after the 2023 LTS release
>  F:	Documentation/ia64/
>  F:	arch/ia64/
>  
> -- 
> 2.39.0
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
  2023-02-15 15:15   ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2023-02-15 15:36     ` Arnd Bergmann
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2023-02-15 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guenter Roeck, Ard Biesheuvel
  Cc: linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, Tony Luck, Jessica Clarke,
	John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox, Marc Zyngier,
	Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023, at 16:15, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
>> unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
>> behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
>> ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
>> have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
>> 
>> Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
>> QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
>> base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
>> let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
>> as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
>> they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
>> mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
>> 
>
> Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't
> see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden
> maintenance effort.
>
> If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file
> for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails
> to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports
> for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test
> beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead,
> remove it, period.
>
> For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch
> made it in, following the guidance above.

I agree. While the idea of waiting for an LTS release makes sense
in general (and I did just that for the unused Arm board files), I
don't see how that would help with the timing here: The only remaining
distro with kernel updates is now Debian-ports, and the coming Bookwork
release will apparently use the 6.1-LTS kernel, but as I understand,
the mentioned (late-2023) LTS kernel will not be part either of the
following (mid-2025) Debian release or this one, so keeping it
for a year longer has all the extra cost without any real benefit.

      Arnd

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
@ 2023-02-15 15:36     ` Arnd Bergmann
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2023-02-15 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guenter Roeck, Ard Biesheuvel
  Cc: linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, Tony Luck, Jessica Clarke,
	John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox, Marc Zyngier,
	Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023, at 16:15, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
>> unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
>> behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
>> ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
>> have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
>> 
>> Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
>> QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
>> base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
>> let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
>> as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
>> they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
>> mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
>> 
>
> Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't
> see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden
> maintenance effort.
>
> If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file
> for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails
> to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports
> for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test
> beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead,
> remove it, period.
>
> For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch
> made it in, following the guidance above.

I agree. While the idea of waiting for an LTS release makes sense
in general (and I did just that for the unused Arm board files), I
don't see how that would help with the timing here: The only remaining
distro with kernel updates is now Debian-ports, and the coming Bookwork
release will apparently use the 6.1-LTS kernel, but as I understand,
the mentioned (late-2023) LTS kernel will not be part either of the
following (mid-2025) Debian release or this one, so keeping it
for a year longer has all the extra cost without any real benefit.

      Arnd

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
  2023-02-15 15:15   ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2023-02-15 15:40     ` Ard Biesheuvel
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2023-02-15 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guenter Roeck
  Cc: linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck,
	Jessica Clarke, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox,
	Marc Zyngier, Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 16:15, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
> > unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
> > behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
> > ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
> > have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
> >
> > Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
> > QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
> > base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
> > let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
> > as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
> > they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
> > mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
> >
>
> Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't
> see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden
> maintenance effort.
>

Can I take this as an ack on

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230215100008.2565237-1-ardb@kernel.org/

?

> If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file
> for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails
> to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports
> for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test
> beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead,
> remove it, period.
>
> For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch
> made it in, following the guidance above.
>

Thanks for the insight. I think we should take the immediate removal route.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
@ 2023-02-15 15:40     ` Ard Biesheuvel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2023-02-15 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guenter Roeck
  Cc: linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck,
	Jessica Clarke, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox,
	Marc Zyngier, Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 16:15, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
> > unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
> > behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
> > ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
> > have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
> >
> > Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
> > QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
> > base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
> > let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
> > as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
> > they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
> > mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
> >
>
> Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't
> see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden
> maintenance effort.
>

Can I take this as an ack on

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230215100008.2565237-1-ardb@kernel.org/

?

> If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file
> for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails
> to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports
> for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test
> beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead,
> remove it, period.
>
> For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch
> made it in, following the guidance above.
>

Thanks for the insight. I think we should take the immediate removal route.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
  2023-02-15 15:40     ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2023-02-15 17:08       ` Guenter Roeck
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2023-02-15 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ard Biesheuvel
  Cc: linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck,
	Jessica Clarke, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox,
	Marc Zyngier, Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 16:15, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
> > > unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
> > > behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
> > > ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
> > > have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
> > >
> > > Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
> > > QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
> > > base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
> > > let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
> > > as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
> > > they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
> > > mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
> > >
> >
> > Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't
> > see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden
> > maintenance effort.
> >
> 
> Can I take this as an ack on
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230215100008.2565237-1-ardb@kernel.org/
>

I would not have considered myself important enough to make such a call,
but from a testbed maintainer's perspective it is an enthusiastic yes.

At the same time, again from a testbed maintainer's perspective,
introducing a new "dead" state into the code base deserves a just as
enthusiastic NACK.

Thanks,
Guenter


> ?
> 
> > If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file
> > for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails
> > to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports
> > for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test
> > beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead,
> > remove it, period.
> >
> > For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch
> > made it in, following the guidance above.
> >
> 
> Thanks for the insight. I think we should take the immediate removal route.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'
@ 2023-02-15 17:08       ` Guenter Roeck
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2023-02-15 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ard Biesheuvel
  Cc: linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, Arnd Bergmann, Tony Luck,
	Jessica Clarke, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Matthew Wilcox,
	Marc Zyngier, Linus Torvalds, linux-ia64

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 16:15, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
> > > unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
> > > behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
> > > ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
> > > have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
> > >
> > > Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
> > > QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
> > > base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
> > > let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
> > > as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
> > > they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
> > > mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
> > >
> >
> > Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't
> > see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden
> > maintenance effort.
> >
> 
> Can I take this as an ack on
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230215100008.2565237-1-ardb@kernel.org/
>

I would not have considered myself important enough to make such a call,
but from a testbed maintainer's perspective it is an enthusiastic yes.

At the same time, again from a testbed maintainer's perspective,
introducing a new "dead" state into the code base deserves a just as
enthusiastic NACK.

Thanks,
Guenter


> ?
> 
> > If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file
> > for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails
> > to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports
> > for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test
> > beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead,
> > remove it, period.
> >
> > For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch
> > made it in, following the guidance above.
> >
> 
> Thanks for the insight. I think we should take the immediate removal route.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-02-15 17:08 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-28 12:29 [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead' Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-28 12:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-02-15 10:19 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-02-15 10:19   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-02-15 15:15 ` Guenter Roeck
2023-02-15 15:15   ` Guenter Roeck
2023-02-15 15:36   ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-02-15 15:36     ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-02-15 15:40   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-02-15 15:40     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-02-15 17:08     ` Guenter Roeck
2023-02-15 17:08       ` Guenter Roeck

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.