[Pkg-clamav-devel] When should we upload to volatile?

[Scott Kitterman]

acab at digitalfuture.it wrote:

>On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:19:06PM +0200, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I'm seeking opinions on whether we should upload to volatile really soon or have
>> clamav rest in unstable for a few days first? For unstable, clamav is already
>> built for all architectures except mips (buildd apparently too busy at the
>> moment), it even seemed to build fine on hppa again. I've prepared everything in
>> the git repo for building&uploading for lenny(-volatile) as well.
>
>Michael,
>
>awesome job with the release.
>
>For volatile I have very mixed feelings and no strong opinion.
>However what I think makes most sense is to release it together with
>unstable.
>
>Let's take this very release as an example.
>Cons: the build is untested and may break.
>Pros: it patches a security issue with bzip.
>
>I may be old school here but I tend to think it's the SA job to plan sw
>upgrades, most notably if to upgrade and when to do it.
>I believe (s)he should be granted the option to upgrade as soon as
>possible if (s)he's scared of the bzip bug, or to hold the update for as
>long as (s)he thinks it's reasonable if (s)he's scared of possible
>stability issues.
>Bottom line is: having 2 options is better than having only one.
>
>This is expecially true as volatile is not main.
>
>Just my 2 eurocents.
>
I say go for it. It's not called volatile for no reason.

Scott K