Re: Temporal Release Strategy
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
If almost everyone you know is a desktop user,
Most everyone I know is an engineer :)
then I can see your
point. But no-one sane running production server systems is going
to run sid.
Well, I'd say no-one sane is running an unqualified/untested
distribution. It doesn't matter when you get it from.
Sid aka unstable on a production system means either updating
your production system every few days to keep up ("sorry customer,
we switched to php 6.8 with postgres 17, rewrite your apps and
fix your sql" or "sorry boss, we switched to php 6.8 with postgres
17, the forced rewrite of the production system means the plant will be
down for 3 weeks")
Yes, all these would clearly be stupid things to do :)
I don't blindly deploy distributions to clients in any case; be it
commercially released ones or snapshots of other once. (well they are
all really snapshots anyway).
you don't upgrade unless needed for security
reasons and at that point you have the same problem but then
for 300 packages at the same time.
security is another thing altogether assessed normally via other
considerations and needs.
That's why you need a stable supported release. No surprises
but still security patches.
I wasn't trying to suggest that the releases should be unstable or
insecure. But these terms are relative and come at a cost don't they?
Maybe it's just better to have "sarge" "sid", etc named releases with
more complicated descriptions of the intent of the releases like Adrian
Bunk wrote so well a few emails back?
I also think that running debian unstable-only will mean debian
will get even less focused.
Ok, I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand all the issues. I just
wanted to send encouraging words and feedback to the developers. debian
(sid specifically) has, and I hope continues to be, spectacularly well
done over the last 5 years. I really think it's the best distribution
Why update your packages, there's not going to be a release ever anyway.
> If we're not at that point already.
I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what I sense is frustration with my
comments/feedback/suggestions. I'm really just trying to complement
everyone involved; mention that sarge and sid are really grand; and pass
back the one bad think is that new users get worried when they hear
"testing" and "unstable". These are clearly not accurate; I can
confidently say that sarge & sid are as "untested" and "unstable" as
mandrake or fedora over the last 5 years.
I merely am suggesting that the bar has been raised so high; the
standard and expectations set at such a lofty level that the general
public might be better served by a more detailed explanation of the
releases and the dangers. Again, like the text Adrian wrote a few emails
back I think is perfect and might be better than calling them simply
"stable", "testing" and "unstable".