From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Oct 8 16:30:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA22330 for stable-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:30:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (root@gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com [207.113.159.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA22325 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:30:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gdonl@tsc.tdk.com) Received: from sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (root@sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.191]) by gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA17300; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.194]) by sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA06676; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gdonl@localhost) by salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA06393; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:29:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis Message-Id: <199710082329.QAA06393@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:29:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: Hetzels@aol.com "Re: CVSup release identity" (Oct 8, 12:01pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95) To: Hetzels@aol.com, rkw@dataplex.net Subject: Re: CVSup release identity Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Oct 8, 12:01pm, Hetzels@aol.com wrote: } Subject: Re: CVSup release identity } In a message dated 97-10-08 11:26:45 EDT, rkw@dataplex.net writes: } > Further, I would phase out the "stable" and "current" } > mailing lists in favor of lists designated by the particular branch's } > numeric name. } } 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. Plus, it forces } users to unsubscribe/resubscribe to the mailing lists (for example a user } upgrades to 2.2 form 2.1. He then needs to unsubscribes from the 2.1 mailing } list and is forced to resubscribe to 2.2.). 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). I'd keep the "current" mailing list, since there's always one of those, but I'd phase out the "stable" list. The problem is that there are currently two -stable branches and: When people post to the -stable list, they say they are running -stable, and their problem is ... It can sometimes take a while to figure out which -stable branch they're talking about. I'm currently following 2.1-stable, so all the folks who start using FreeBSD 2.2.x probably don't want my messages about 2.1 cluttering their inbox. As the number of users of 2.1 decrease, the traffic on it's list would also decrease, reducing the incentive for experienced users to unsubscribe. The only issue I see is how to populate the new list that is created when a branch is added. Probably the best thing to do is to announce the creation of the new list and let folks decide whether they want to subscribe or not. --- Truck