Gustavo Franco wrote: > Exactly my point, again: Contributors and developers are using > unstable or stable more than testing. I would like to see a scenario > where we keep a lot of people using unstable with no automatic updates > to force them pick how and what much of that they want, but at the > same time use as base of their system testing. That doesn't work. Testing is mostly identical to unstable unless the changes that filter into it have first been tested in unstable and the bad changes filtered out. With your proposal, there is a lower probability of a change being tested by anyone before it reaches testing. I've already discussed in this thread how cherry-picking of changes from experimental rarely works well enough to get useful testing in experimental. Do you have some reason to believe that cherry-picking changes from unstable would somehow work better? -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature