Christian PERRIER wrote: > Well, after thinking a little bit more, I wonder if the case of users > installing testing *and then* wanting to track stable is really what > we want to address here. And I also wonder whether that happens often > (that someone installs testing and then sticks to stable once the > testing (s)he installed has been released. Anecdotally, I can tell you that it's not uncommon for users on debian-user to talk about installing testing around this time in the freeze to get a leg up on the stable release. (Assuming there is a recent installer.) As to actual data, I do remember seeing that effect in the popcon data around previous releases, and it was a significant percentage of eg, total stable systems reporting to popcon, though I don't remember it and lack network to look it up. > OTOH, not being able to guarantee an upgrade path from t-p-u to (the > next) stable is probably not a good idea if we want people to use > t-p-u (which was the original point of this discussion). Couldn't that > be turned into a requirement? Such a requirement would make it hard for t-p-u to be used for uploading a new minor upstream release to fix a security hole. If the release happened before that got out of t-p-u, the security hole would later be fixed by backporting. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature