From owner-freebsd-scsi Sat Dec 4 8:56:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from panzer.kdm.org (panzer.kdm.org [216.160.178.169]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C75E14C9C for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 08:56:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ken@panzer.kdm.org) Received: (from ken@localhost) by panzer.kdm.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id JAA69209; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:55:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ken) Message-Id: <199912041655.JAA69209@panzer.kdm.org> Subject: Re: Administrivia: charter clarification question In-Reply-To: <199912041637.CAA03403@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> from Stephen McKay at "Dec 5, 1999 02:37:58 am" To: syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au (Stephen McKay) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:55:57 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG From: "Kenneth D. Merry" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Stephen McKay wrote... > In response to my recent thread "Tape driver problems" I was advised twice > by a respectable FreeBSD citizen that my posting was misfiled and should > have gone to -current. Quote: > > "If it's -CURRENT, talk about it on -CURRENT. That overrides anything else." > > It is my belief that scsi stuff should be discussed on -scsi no matter > whether it is -current, -stable, or some older release. Am I wrong? > The charter as it stands is rather thin: > > >>>> info freebsd-scsi > FREEBSD-SCSI SCSI subsystem > This is the mailing list for people working on the scsi subsystem > for FreeBSD. You are correct. Any SCSI problem should be discussed here first, instead of in -current or -stable. I certainly read this list before any other FreeBSD list, and I suspect the same is true for Justin and Matt as well. Ken -- Kenneth Merry ken@kdm.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message