Re: about volatile.d.o/n
Andreas Barth <email@example.com> writes:
> - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only
> contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them
I think your proposal looks good, but I would like to see this
particular item fleshed out more fully. In particular, what kinds of
changes are being considered here?
In other words, would it count as "necessary" to say "new upstream
major release provides a new feature which keeps the virus scanner
useful, and also changes a bajillion unrelated things"?
In my book, the new virus definitions would be necessary, but not the
bajillion unrelated things, and I would like to see a rule that you
could not just put in the new upstream major release merely to get the
new virus definitions. That is, some kind of "minimal change to
preserve utility" rule, which might require the volatile-managers or
whoever to be Real Programmers and not just compilers.