On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 2:38 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 15/02/2020 05:22, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > > This makes sense. Is there any reason for the ordering? > It should be alphabetically sorted. > > > > If possible, I think grouping by obsoleted version or alphabetical > > ordering would be a good idea. > > Maybe I should add a comment like this to the top of the list: > > /* > * Please keep the list of obsolete configuration options > alphabetically sorted. > * > * Use #warning for renamed options and define the new option accordingly. > * > * Use #warning for obsolete options which are now superfluous, e.g. > because > * the objects are now self-contained. > * > * Use #error for options which require now a different configuration > approach, > * e.g. options for an own configuration table. > * > And note when perhaps with a version when an option was deemed obsolete. You might be able to get that from git blame in the future but for now we just destroyed all that info for blame by creating a new file. > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
