Re: Half-baked unused features.

[Carl Sorensen]

On 8/15/10 8:06 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On 8/15/10 7:39 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 8/15/10 6:48 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> IMO, getting rid of bit-rotted code is always a good idea.
>>>> 
>>>>> Should it
>>>>> be wrapped in a full review process?
>>>> 
>>>> I think so.  The full review process for removing old stuff is
>>>> generally very short and sweet (post the patch, somebody important
>>>> says OK), so I don't think it hurts a bit to do it.
>>> 
>>> It only involves creating a separate branch, moving the change there,
>>> removing the change from all ongoing development in related areas
>>> (and/or postponing work on them until the review process of the bitrot
>>> change has come to a close), creating a Rietveld issue, uploading the
>>> changes to Rietveld, monitoring all progress on it, repeating a full
>>> regtest for any proposed modifications and juggling with
>>> merge/cherry-pick while doing the parallel development and so on.
>> 
>> No, you said it was all in one commit.  So you have a branch with that
>> commit and you keep rebasing it.
> 
> I don't have that branch yet.
> 
>> When uploading patches to Rietveld one can choose whatever commit is
>> desired as the reference for the upload, so I think that overlapping
>> patches can be handled without too much difficulty.
> 
> Whatever.  I'll jump through the hoops for now.  I am not confident that
> I will consider doing cleanup worth the trouble in future.  If you have
> to invest those resources, it distracts from what you actually wanted to
> be doing.

Well, FWIW, Graham agrees with you and not with me, so you could follow
Graham's advice instead of mine.

Thanks,

Carl