Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:03:33 +0000 (UTC) From: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy for removing working code Message-ID: <slrni8hq9l.2rb2.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> References: <201009011653.o81Grkm4056064@fire.js.berklix.net> <201009080842.28495.jhb@freebsd.org> <slrni8f5pi.2k1s.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> <201009081021.48077.jhb@freebsd.org> <4c88993e.MgMUYIGSfJIxECy9%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <AANLkTinYyn6G0UdJAeppyhVZXrFN-AOw3qLH6CpZ%2BXoy@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Scot Hetzel! On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 04:18:52 -0500; Scot Hetzel wrote about 'Re: Policy for removing working code': >>> We can't e-mail announce@ every time something is going to >>> be removed. šThat 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"? šThose >> following a -STABLE branch are expected to read stable@, but >> what about those who are following a security branch? >> > If someone is following a RELENG_X (a.k.a -STABLE) or a RELENG_X_Y (a > errata fix branch), then they should be reading the stable@ list. True for RELENG_X, but not for RELENG_X_Y. They shouldn't, because all information for security/errata fix branch go to announce@, they don't need to read all noise in stable@ just for this. And, what is more important, they in fact don't do. So announce@ is the only choice from purely practical means. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrni8hq9l.2rb2.vadim_nuclight>