Policy for removing working code

Vadim Goncharov vadim_nuclight at mail.ru
Thu Sep 9 14:03:52 UTC 2010

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

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

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list