From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 9 09:46:34 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 C0EE810656E4 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:46:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C628FC21 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:46:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id MAA28751; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:33:58 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1OtdW2-0004Tt-0p; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:33:58 +0300 Message-ID: <4C88AA05.5050909@icyb.net.ua> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:33:57 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100822 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: perryh@pluto.rain.com References: <201009011653.o81Grkm4056064@fire.js.berklix.net> <201009080842.28495.jhb@freebsd.org> <201009081021.48077.jhb@freebsd.org> <4c88993e.MgMUYIGSfJIxECy9%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <4c88993e.MgMUYIGSfJIxECy9%perryh@pluto.rain.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 09:46:34 -0000 on 09/09/2010 11:22 perryh@pluto.rain.com said the following: > 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? People, who care, are expected to read current@ and stable@ even if they use only releases and security branches. At the very least, to see what's cooking up for them and what to expect. P.S. I am surprised that this thread isn't over yet and is being kept alive by people who do not seem to use the feature in question or offer any work on it. While people, who really need it, have already found a way forward for themselves. P.P.S. Please, please, let it go now. Watch current@, watch stable@ and speak up next time such an announcement is made. Do it on time, don't wait until a few years later :-) -- Andriy Gapon