On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 05:47:05AM -1000, Joseph Kowalski wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >>2) Volatile seems low for this, based on my "meager, but non-null" > >>understanding of the RealVNC project. Is this a "keep it Volatile > >>for now, higher later" type of thing or is there some other reason? > > > >Simply that I have no feeling about the level of interface stability that > >RealVNC maintains. > Sounds reasonable. In that case, Volatile is probably the right > choice for now. Maybe after more experience with RealVNC, we might > want to raise this to Uncommitted (which is more committed than > Volatile).
Wouldn't we want to commit to the executable names but leave the CLIs, feature lists, config file formats, ... as volatile? (Wasn't that what was done for Mozilla/Firefox?)
