Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:03:34 -0800 From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: "Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson" <insane@oneinsane.net>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What Mailing LIST for 2.2-STABLE Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990125140334.0095c5a0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901251524030.2183-100000@nomad.dataplex.net > References: <19990125101153.B5527@the.oneinsane.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:39 PM 1/25/99 -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >Yes, I think that it should exist. > >I also recommend a methodology to make it easy for users in >the future. Personally, I think the concept of "stable" vs "current" is easy. Yes, the current revision of "stable" and "current" continue to move forward, but "stable" is always the latest release + patches and current is always what on the HEAD. >Call the lists "2.2", "3", "HEAD", etc. > rather than "stable" and "current". Yiks!... I'd hate to have to subscribe to 3.1 then 3.2 then 3.3.... and I'd hate it MORE if someone changed my subscriptions for me. >On the other end, the 1.x, 2.0, etc. lists can be merged into one >"UNSUPPORTED" list by merging the lists and playing with the aliases. >The aliases can be phased out by an auto-responder that reminds to sender >that the name they are using has been deprecated. stable has welcomed postings for prior "stable" releases. Having multiple lists on fragments the discussions. Continued discussions of 2.2-stable on -stable is fine. You'll always have "that's fixed in the latest stable" no matter what as most folks don't immediately update to -stable as the commits hit the repository. I suggest we just keep the lists/archives the way they are... Kurt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.19990125140334.0095c5a0>