Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 04:18:52 -0500 From: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru, stable@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy for removing working code Message-ID: <AANLkTinYyn6G0UdJAeppyhVZXrFN-AOw3qLH6CpZ%2BXoy@mail.gmail.com> 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 Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:22 AM, <perryh@pluto.rain.com> wrote: > John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> We can't e-mail announce@ every time something is going to >> be removed. =A0That 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"? =A0Those > 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. Scot
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinYyn6G0UdJAeppyhVZXrFN-AOw3qLH6CpZ%2BXoy>