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

Re: Finding an improved release process.

On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 11:15:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.

Yes, very clever, you've successfully conflated the terminology. He
was obviously referring to 'no/low serious bugs', as distinct from

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: