[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Finding an improved release process.



Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 01:34:09PM +1100, alexeijh@westnet.com.au wrote:
People often suggest running testing or unstable. "It's just as stable as any distro". I have never agreed with this. The reason for this is that neither are engineered or intended for being an end product.
This is an improper definition of 'stable'. It doesn't mean
'reliable', it means 'not changing'. The important feature of a stable
release is that it stays the same.

Not changing does actually mean it's reliable -- you can rely on doing the same thing today as it did yesterday. Other components of reliability include prompt security support (which stable has and testing and unstable don't to varying degrees), and the ability to get quick fixes for other "important" bugs (which is available to varying degrees in both testing and unstable, and available in stable via unofficial backports, or recompiling yourself).

I'll also note Lex didn't actually mention reliability in any case - and certainly neither are engineered as an "end product", though testing at least was intended to be half a decade ago...

Cheers,
aj

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: