From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Oct 8 17:40:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA26175 for stable-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:40:55 -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 RAA26170 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:40:53 -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 RAA17916; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:40:41 -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 RAA08079; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gdonl@localhost) by salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA06632; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:40:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis Message-Id: <199710090040.RAA06632@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:40:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: Richard Wackerbarth "Re: CVSup release identity" (Oct 8, 7:14pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95) To: Richard Wackerbarth , Don Lewis Subject: Re: CVSup release identity Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Oct 8, 7:14pm, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: } Subject: Re: CVSup release identity } Don Lewis 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