On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote: > > > We're going OT, however my experience based on last two Debian > releases: > > testing becomes quite "stable in means of usability" somewhere half > year > > before it's released as "stable". The sooner before the stable, the > rapidly > > increasing is the chance that the snapshot that You have will not > be > > installable at all, will have dependencies severely broken, etc. > > In several mails you claimed testing as broken. This is completely > orthognal to my experience. I'm using testing since its existence > on most of my boxes. To that, I run Sid/unstable on 90% of everything I have. Stable on those machines that cannot have problems. > Only production servers are running stable and I keep my fingers from > running unstable (except of chroots). I haven't seen an unstable problem that was a problem for more than a couple of days... and mostly had workarounds in any case. > So were is the proof for you statement. What are the numbers of the > bugs you might have reported against packages in testing? Could you > please a bit more verbose about your problems in testing because > nobody else made it to my radar that testing is that unusable. Perhaps > I missed something ... I've asked for specific examples. > Kind regards > > Andreas (writing from a laptop that runs testing. ;-)) Cheers from a Sid+Experimental machine. -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part