Policy for removing working code

[Erik Trulsson]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:22:22AM -0700, perryh at pluto.rain.com wrote:
> John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> 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
ertr1013 at student.uu.se