Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:40:38 -0700 From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>, Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CVSup release identity Message-ID: <199710090040.RAA06632@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> In-Reply-To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> "Re: CVSup release identity" (Oct 8, 7:14pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 8, 7:14pm, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: } Subject: Re: CVSup release identity } Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> writes: } My proposal would be to set up 2.1, 2.2, and 3.0 lists immediately. } By announcement, etc. I would encourage EVERYONE to use the new } designation. However, for legacy purposes, I would then make "stable" } a mail alias for both 2.1 and 2.2. After a transition period, I would } drop 2.1 from that alias. Eventually, we could "bounce" messages to } "stable" with a note to post to either 2.1, 2.2, ... as appropriate. } In a similar manner, I would make "current" an alias for 3.0. } } The initial membership of both 2.1 and 2.2 would be the present "stable" list. } Participants would be notified to unsubscribe if they are not interested. } The initial membership of 3.0 is the present "current" list. Sounds reasonable. } Further, if you started running 2.2 before its first release, and are } still running it, I see no reason why YOU should have to change lists. True, unless you changed your supfile to track -current, in which case switching lists at the same time makes sense. } >The only issue I see is how to populate the new list that is created } >when a branch is added. } } Clone the old list. Let people who don't want both unsubscribe. IMHO, it } is better to send someone too much than to simply cut them off. That was my first thought, but I decided against it. I don't have a real strong opinion one way or another. --- Truck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710090040.RAA06632>