On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Agreed. So, this means: Backport the necessary changes. Sometimes, it's > just not enough to only update the virus scanner definitions, because > new functionality is needed to scan the files (just consider that a very > new archive format gets so popular that it needs to be supported, just > like zip now). When spamassassin is upgraded, it's more than just the rules. Often the method of parsing the message is changed -- leading to better results, or support for different tests is added, etc. It would be very difficult to only backport the appropriate changes, and the result would be less stable than the version from which backporting was taking place. On the other hand, each new version makes minor changes to functionality. (Ignore 3.0.0 right now, it's got different issues all together.) To require backported changes would simply be a waste of effort and would defeat the purpose to a certain extent. > And, if there are changes that should be available on stable, but not be > the default (like e.g. the current spamassassin3), than they might get > in as new package, not disturbing the users of the old one, but giving > more choices. (Of course, even then, the package needs to be a bit more > mature than the curent spamassassin3, but that's a different thing. ;) > > > 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. Hmm.. -- Duncan Findlay
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature