From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 10 09:20:39 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 750A31065694 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:20:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from tower.berklix.org (tower.berklix.org [83.236.223.114]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22DF8FC15 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:20:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from park.js.berklix.net (p549A7BE7.dip.t-dialin.net [84.154.123.231]) (authenticated bits=0) by tower.berklix.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o8A9KPdS029426 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:20:30 GMT (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (fire.js.berklix.net [192.168.91.41]) by park.js.berklix.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8A9KF1A033216 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:20:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fire.js.berklix.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8A9KAAp030811 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:20:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jhs@fire.js.berklix.net) Message-Id: <201009100920.o8A9KAAp030811@fire.js.berklix.net> to: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org From: "Julian H. Stacey" Organization: http://www.berklix.com BSD Unix Linux Consultancy, Munich Germany User-agent: EXMH on FreeBSD http://www.berklix.com/free/ X-URL: http://www.berklix.com In-reply-to: Your message "Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:03:33 -0000." Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:20:10 +0200 Sender: jhs@berklix.com 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: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:20:39 -0000 Vadim Goncharov wrote: > 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. One option could be a new list perhaps called eg one of features@ advisories@ notifications@ feature-notifications@ to carry heads up notification of future feature changes / removals. Its would be more traffic than announce@ but much lower traffic than stable@ FreeBSD already has the precedent of security-notifications@ Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey: BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Mail plain text, Not HTML, quoted-printable & base 64 dumped with spam. Avoid top posting, It cripples itemised cumulative responses.