[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: about volatile.d.o/n



This one time, at band camp, John Hasler said:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> 
> >   1. Volatile is a means for *pushing* updates to stable
> >      installations, where such updates are necessary for *preserving*
> >      the utility of packages due to changes of the outside world.
> 
> >   2. "Necessary for preserving the utility" should be judged under
> >      the assumption that the machine that runs stable does not itself
> >      change. (I.e., appeals to "this is needed for modern hardware"
> >      don't count).
> 
> >   3. No update pushed through volatile should ever change any
> >      user interfaces or programmatic interface. (How paranoid
> >      developers are expected to be in ensuring this is negotiable,
> >      but it must at least be the *goal* that no interfaces change.)
> 
> > ...
> 
> > An update of mozilla-browser would be appropriate for volatile if it
> > did not change the upstream codebase, but, say, updated the default
> > SSL root certificate set in response to announcements from a
> > well-known CA.
> 
> > An update that fixed the default style sheet to include new tags
> > from XHTML 2.1, assuming that it was possible without code changes,
> > would be borderline. Anything more involved than that - no thanks.
> 
> Sounds about right to me.

AOL.  Thanks, Henning, for saying it so much better than I could.
-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
|   ,''`.					     Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :					 sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'			Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-					    http://www.debian.org |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpTC_qHYCLYm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: