Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:33:57 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy for removing working code Message-ID: <4C88AA05.5050909@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4c88993e.MgMUYIGSfJIxECy9%perryh@pluto.rain.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C88AA05.5050909>