On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:30:34AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > It should be > debian-user-woody > debian-user-sid > _or_ > debian-user-testing > debian-user-unstable > 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 agree. 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. Chris
