Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:15:23PM +0100, Sven Burgener wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:23:55PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > the new 'testing' distribution (sid) should be even better - nearly
> > all the benefits of 'unstable' but tested to at least install properly
> > without error.
>
> Wrong: unstable->sid; testing->woody.
yes, my mistake. i don't know why i called it sid when i know it isn't. a
brainfart.
my comments about the usefulness of the 'testing' distribution still
apply.
> Personally, I would recommend the use of 'testing' in a production
> environment, but not unstable. One doesn't always have the time to
> fix problems related to the distribution itself whilst working in a
> production environment.
i would recommend the use of either testing or unstable or stable
depending upon the particular requirements of the situation.
stable is good when you don't need or want any change at all.
testing is good when you want/need to be mostly up-to-date with the
latest versions but don't have the time to deal with packaging errors.
unstable is good when you want/need to be up-to-date and have both the
time and the skill to deal with any problems that may arise.
most people with a decent net connection will probably settle for using
'testing'....however that won't be much use if nobody uses 'unstable' as
unstable packages won't get installed and tested, so bug reports won't
be filed, so unstable packages will move into testing without actually
having been tested by anyone.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: