Skip to content

Conversation

@dakr
Copy link
Member

@dakr dakr commented Jan 4, 2026

The features tracked by those staging branches have been landed upstream over a year ago. The branches are orphaned since then. Thus, remove them.

The features tracked by those staging branches have been landed upstream
over a year ago. The branches are orphaned since then. Thus, remove
them.

Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
@ojeda ojeda merged commit 65f36b3 into Rust-for-Linux:main Jan 4, 2026
@dakr
Copy link
Member Author

dakr commented Jan 4, 2026

@ojeda We should also remove the corresponding branches in the kernel repository.

@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented Jan 4, 2026

+1, done.

@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented Jan 5, 2026

Wait, they were under ## Past branches already, i.e. I moved them already on 1948ed7 ("Branches: update subpage").

I guess it can be confusing since the nesting is hard to see.

Hmm... I think I will move all those "Past branches" into a hidden page and just link it from there instead, that way there is no confusion and no lost context.

@dakr
Copy link
Member Author

dakr commented Jan 5, 2026

Not sure there is much value doing it: The branches do not contain anything interesting and cause more confusion in the kernel repository. The entries on the website should at least be stripped by maintainer information and encouragement for contribution. Given that, there isn't really anything left I think.

@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented Jan 7, 2026

Yeah, it is mostly that I try to keep some historical context around in the website (I didn't mean to reinstate the branches themselves; in fact, we should probably remove soon e.g. rust-net, but rather keep the context in the page). This sort of context can help when others may read old discussions and wonder what was that about etc.

I have done an update, but please let me know if you want to remove anything (e.g. if you don't want to appear as the maintainer): https://rust-for-linux.com/past-branches

Thanks!

@dakr
Copy link
Member Author

dakr commented Jan 7, 2026

Sounds good to me, thanks!

Yes, please remove myself from this section, it happens that it is picked up wrongly in posts or articles and by LLMs. :)

ojeda added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 7, 2026
Link: #56 (comment)
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented Jan 7, 2026

Done! (I removed the entire line for those branches).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants