Re: RFD: Separate mailing list for users running testing?
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:30:34AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> It should be
> if anything at all (I don't comment on the necessity as I don't read
> -user currently).
> The latter two having the advantage that we need not rename the lists
> once woody gets stable and a new testing is forked.
> The debian-user- naming scheme makes it more clear that those are
> _user_ lists, born from debian-user (compare this to your favorite newsgroup
> hirachy) and also sorts nicely.
I don't think it is a good idea, though, to have seperate testing and unstable
lists, because the two distributions are so similar to each other, and often
information that is posted on one list would be invaluble to the other. That
argument could also be applied to testing vs. stable for certain other packages
that have not been modified for a long time, but those packages tend to need
less help on -user anyway.
For me, debian-user-testing is still the name that describes the list best and
is the most obvious for the target users. We can always add a comment to the
mailing list description that it also applies to unstable, for those users who
are using unstable rather than testing.