On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:22:22AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > John Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 :)
If mails to announce@ were only sent at the point significant stuff actually is removed it might not be all that much traffic, but at that point it seems a bit late for people to protest against the removal since it has already happened. OTOH, if mails were sent to announce@ everytime something was proposed to be removed then there would probably be far too much traffic for that list. (Most discussions regarding removing stuff tend to end up with status quo being maintained.) > > > 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? That depends on what they want to know. If they are concerned about things affecting the branch they are following, then announce@ is probably sufficient since all security advisories are sent there and there are essentially no other changes made to a security branch. If, on the other hand, they are interested in what will be included/not included in future major releases, then current@ is pretty much a must-read. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson [email protected] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
