From owner-freebsd-stable  Wed Oct  8 10:32:44 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02691
          for stable-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable)
Received: from emout39.mail.aol.com (emout39.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.73])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02686
          for <stable@freebsd.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from Hetzels@aol.com)
From: Hetzels@aol.com
Received: (from root@localhost)
	  by emout39.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
	  id NAA12939;
	  Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:32:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:32:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <971008122733_-859415238@emout12.mail.aol.com>
To: rkw@dataplex.net
cc: stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: CVSup release identity
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In a message dated 97-10-08 12:22:12 EDT, rkw@dataplex.net writes:

> >I would leave the mailing lists alone.  Why, because as users transition
from
>  >one branch to the next (2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0), the number of individuals to 
> help
>  >solve problems will decrease in the older mailing lists.
>  OTOH, the same thing already occurs. There are quite a few of the
"current"
>  crowd who never look at "stable". They also object to questions that
belong
>  on "stable" being asked on "current" or "hackers". My making the lists
more
>  explicit, the misposting should decrease.
>  
>  >  Plus, it forces
>  >users to unsubscribe/resubscribe to the mailing lists (for example a user
>  >upgrades to 2.2 from 2.1. He then needs to unsubscribes from the 2.1 
> mailing
>  >list and is forced to resubscribe to 2.2.)
>  
>  As if he won't have to subscribe to "stable" when the development branch
>  moves to 4.0 ... I will argue that it makes more sense for the user to
>  subscribe to a list when he changes systems rather than when someone else
>  releases a new system. As for the creation of a new branch and the
>  associated mailing list, that could be handled by administratively cloning
>  the development list. Anyone who had no interest in following both lists
>  could unsubscribe from the list that no longer interests them.
>  
>  
>  >. Besides, the same questions will
>  >be asked in multiple mailing lists, instead of just in one (stable).
Also,
>  >the development team dosen't have to track 3+ mailing lists, only 2).
>  
>  By that argument, we should merge stable and current and have only one
>  list. :-)
>  I don't agree. Lists are split because their content should be different.
>  
>  BTW, if, today,  my system says that I am running 2.1-CURRENT, which list
>  should I use?
>  
>  Richard Wackerbarth
>  
Ok, why don't we leave the mailing lists alone for now, and get back to
solving the problem with the source tree first.

If you feel so strongly about this talk to the mailing list maintainers.

Scot