Re: about volatile.d.o/n
Martin Zobel-Helas <mhelas@helas.net> wrote:
> i would like to see some "policy", what, when and under which
> circumstances gets included to volatile.d.n.
The most sensible policy would be a case by case consideration. Some
packages can sanely have the desired features backported [1], and some
can't [2]. It's possible that we /could/ write policy that would
actually be able to differentiate between the two cases, but it's fairly
likely that it would just end up devolving into flamewars about corner
cases or misclassification. I'd suggest a team of reasonable people who
we trust to make the decisions and liase with package maintainers as
appropriate. It's much less effort and it involves much less
unhappiness.
[1] whois would probably be a good example - if the set of whois servers
is suddenly altered, the right thing to do is to change the list rather
than update to the latest version
[2] If sensible spamassassin functionality is based on a new parsing
engine, then backporting that functionality to the old parsing engine
may be impossible and is certainly going to involve a sufficiently large
amount of new and untested code that any claims about enhanced stability
aren't going to be massively convincing
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: