Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'

[Guenter Roeck]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 16:15, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx/
>

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.