Policy for removing working code

[Julian H. Stacey]

Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> 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. šThat 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"? šThose
> >> 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.

One option could be a new list perhaps called eg one of
	features@
	advisories@
	notifications@
	feature-notifications@
to carry heads up notification of future feature changes / removals.
Its would be more traffic than
	announce@
but much lower traffic than
	stable@
FreeBSD already has the precedent of
	security-notifications@

Cheers,
Julian
-- 
Julian Stacey: BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
 Mail plain text,  Not HTML, quoted-printable & base 64 dumped with spam.
	Avoid top posting, It cripples itemised cumulative responses.