Re: about volatile.d.o/n

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Duncan Findlay <duncf@debian.org> writes:

> 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.

Nonsense.  It would be harder work, and maybe there is nobody around
to do the hard work.  But it is hardly impossible.

This is what stability is about.  What you are calling for is
abandoning Debian's stability judgment to upstream's, in a situation
where upstream isn't making any stability promises at all.

So backport the appropriate changes only, and find programmers who can
do a good enough job not to screw it up and destabilize it.

Thomas