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. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nucli...@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] _______________________________________________ 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"