Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only > contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them > functional;
I think your proposal looks good, but I would like to see this particular item fleshed out more fully. In particular, what kinds of changes are being considered here? In other words, would it count as "necessary" to say "new upstream major release provides a new feature which keeps the virus scanner useful, and also changes a bajillion unrelated things"? In my book, the new virus definitions would be necessary, but not the bajillion unrelated things, and I would like to see a rule that you could not just put in the new upstream major release merely to get the new virus definitions. 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. Thomas
