From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 9 14:03:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94DC1065696 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:03:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D76B8FC08 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:03:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OthjC-0003z8-6Y for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:03:50 +0200 Received: from nuclight.avtf.net ([217.29.94.29]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:03:50 +0200 Received: from vadim_nuclight by nuclight.avtf.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:03:50 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org From: Vadim Goncharov Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Nuclear Lightning @ Tomsk, TPU AVTF Hostel Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <201009011653.o81Grkm4056064@fire.js.berklix.net> <201009080842.28495.jhb@freebsd.org> <201009081021.48077.jhb@freebsd.org> <4c88993e.MgMUYIGSfJIxECy9%perryh@pluto.rain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: nuclight.avtf.net X-Comment-To: Scot Hetzel User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD) Subject: Re: Policy for removing working code X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru 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 14:03:52 -0000 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]