On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:45:12PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
> ... so why not just package up unstable and release it without fixing
> bugs if using them is the same? I think I'm missing something
> here. Even if you're cautious, isn't unstable more likely to have
> bugs (the RC list comes to mind) and other non-tested problems than a
> stable tested release?
1. hopefully the package-pools/rolling-releases idea will allow us to
make regular (monthly, perhaps) snapshots of unstable. then more people
will be able to benefit from debian's greatest advantage, rather than
just those who have fast and/or cheap internet connections.
2. of course stable and unstable are not the same. they have different
bugs. you can have your choice of old bugs and old security holes in
stable or new bugs and new security holes in unstable.
3. how do you think the RC bug list gets created? by people installing
stuff from 'unstable' and or 'frozen'. somebody's got to be the first to
try a new/upgraded package and submit a bug report - i.e. people who use
unstable are an important part of the testing cycle.
> I can't help thinking it's called 'unstable' for a reason...
to discourage InfoMagic from releasing it before we do.
check the archives of debian-private, or debian-devel or perhaps the old
& dead debian-masters list. that is the reason we called it unstable.