On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 08:05:48PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> David Starner <dvdeug@ispwest.com> wrote:
> >> sid=unstable - you know that, don't you?
>
> > We need someone to test unstable, don't we? We can not realistically
> > test our distribution if the only people running it are those with many
> > computers who put it on one they aren't really using. Please don't give
> > our testers crap for actually testing the system in real life
> > situations.
>
> If somebody _needs_ his computer working 100% ("I've got an essay due
> in 24 hours...") and runs unstable on it imho some reminder that this
> might be a bad choice is *required*.
> cu andreas
> PS: And please don't forget the fact that I did provide a solution for
> the original problem.
Not only using unstable, but upgrading it so short time before.
But this also shows that unstable works quite well. If unstable were
brokening or broken everyday, people won't upgrade it so often and
carelessly.
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
jsogo@debian.org
Attachment:
pgpoGZbJon_sm.pgp
Description: PGP signature