On Thursday 07 December 2006 21:48, Kevin Day wrote: > Which reminds me, will there be a future split in the HLFS mailings > lists when dev picks back up? Maintaining both stable and dev on one > mailings "might" cause trouble. HLFS is quite small in popularity > when compared to the parent projects (LFS/BLFS), so mainting both > hlfs-stable and hlfs-dev on the same mailing list may be doable.
I never thought about it. Some issues might be related to both stable and unstable, even if it's not obvious at first. For example, what looks like a bug in an Autoconf version, in unstable, might be a bug in an M4 version in both stable and unstable. With two mailing lists this bug in stable would be diagnosed in the unstable list.. so -stable users would actually need to subscribe to both mailing list, which defeats the purpose of having two lists. The advantage to having two lists is that -stable users don't have to read about unstable changes. I think maintaining a verbose changelog/wiki/errata for -stable would be best, with a single mailing list. robert
pgpBnPH29MqMP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
