From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 9 08:30:58 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9780F10656E7; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:30:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C378FC22; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id o898Uuvq072008 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Sep 2010 01:30:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.9/Submit) with UUCP id o898UuqP072007; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 01:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fbsd61 by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA08372; Thu, 9 Sep 10 01:26:41 PDT Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:22:22 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: jhb@freebsd.org, vadim_nuclight@mail.ru Message-Id: <4c88993e.MgMUYIGSfJIxECy9%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <201009011653.o81Grkm4056064@fire.js.berklix.net> <201009080842.28495.jhb@freebsd.org> <201009081021.48077.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201009081021.48077.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy for removing working code X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:30:58 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > We can't e-mail announce@ every time something is going to > be removed. That would be way too much spam for that list. That may depend on how often something substantial is removed :) > I do think stable@ is a good place to e-mail ... Good, perhaps even "necessary", but is it "sufficient"? Those following a -STABLE branch are expected to read stable@, but what about those who are following a security branch? > I do think that the general rule is that stable@ should be on > the list. It is true that that did not happen in this case (and > probably should have), but it does happen in the typical case. > I would chalk this up to a one-time slip-up, not a systemic problem. In light of this slip-up having now resulted in at least one user having the rug yanked out from under him, perhaps the security officer should be approached WRT continuing support for 6.4 until ISDN is resurrected (which, to judge from other postings in this thread, seems unlikely to amount to "indefinitely"). > ... we lost a few SCSI HBA drivers during the transition to CAM > (e.g. wds(4) was not present in 4.x but was eventually CAM-ified > and reappeared in 5.0). I suspect there was far less notice given > for those drivers than for ISDN (multiple notices to arch@ and > current@ spread out across many months). But, as noted previously, not to any list that someone following a security branch would be expected to read. Beyond that, I suspect that dropping an HBA or three would have been far less burdensome on users of the hardware in question than dropping ISDN is on its users. One can always replace a no-longer-supported HBA with a supported one, or (worst case) replace the whole box. In contrast, someone located beyond DSL range may have no other viable option than ISDN. Perhaps it would be advisable to e-mail announce@ when something is to be removed _and_ there is no recommended migration path. That should reduce the frequency of such postings considerably compared with the strawman suggestion that > ... every time something is going to be removed would overload the list.