Andi,
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:15:29PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * paddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041008 15:10]:
> > What are the pros and cons for
> > volatile-{stable,release,or-whatever-you-call-it}
> > as an all-at-once release model, rather than a rolling-when-its-ready
> > model more like security.d.o ?
>
> well, not exactly an "all at once", but having not just a random minor
> update to pop up every day is IMHO a great feature for system
> administrators - they're not forced into additional update rounds.
On providing a mechanism to limit the rate at which updates present,
I agree. I would hope that could be acheived having a structure parallel
to upstream release structure.
If volatile-stable included as a criterion time-served three months
(pick a number, archive wide or perhaps per source package),
I believe it could prove a wise choice of mechanism: familiar,
cheap to implement, and a good proxy for some desirable qualities.
I don't understand 'forced into additional update rounds'.
Choice is good, information is good, freedom from choice can also be good.
But if I had to choose between these, then, yes, a good spot between the
spring and the sea.
> > Does anybody want to use a three month old clamav ?
> > (with up-to-date definitions of course)
> > Why?
>
> I do. Why: Because there is no reason to update it more often.
My reason for the converse (for me that is) is simple:
clamav may (and does) catch something that other scanners do not.
up-to-date-ness can be critical in this case, and thus represents
a substantial portion of the whole value.
I certainly don't wish to pry, and I can't fault "don't fix it if
it ain't broken". I'm explaining what I do with clamav, and thus,
I hope, my appetite for up-to-date-ness. So,
In what use-cases is a three-month clamav good, a two-year-old clamav
not, and newer not interesting? What does it do?
I hope that by asking and answering such questions, light could
usefully be shed on a volatile.d.n. endeavour.
Regards,
Paddy
