Nicolas Williams wrote:
> 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?)
>
For almost any combination of stabilities, I can probably point to an
example: :-)
A common case is that the executable names are "more committed" that other
items.
Many things like this (where we believe the community is "well behaved") a
common case is:
executable names: Committed
cli options: Uncommitted
other (config files, etc.): Volatile
I'm not suggesting this. Its just a common example.
- jek3
