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. That 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"? Those > >> 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. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"