Re: unstable is "unstable"; stable is "outdated"
>
> > kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable"
is
> > problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.
>
> Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is
> usually stable enough for most applications plus the various software
> packages are pretty up to date.
>
I remember reading somewhere that security updates go to unstable first,
then into "security", then testing... meaning that testing was the last to
get security updates. Is this wrong?
Reply to: