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

Re: 178 days and counting

> The problem is that developers (I mean Debian Developers mostly)
> actually use unstable for their work. Having unstable packages to work
> with is ok for most packages, but when core things like XFree, gnome,
> kde ... are *really* unstable in unstable, people will get annoyed.

Then they have to go look up what unstable really means. I think that they
should be running testing.

> Yes, unstable is unstable, and developers expect brokenness here and
> there. But it's a question of magnitude. And: a big update requires a
> transistion plan to avoid stupid mistakes - and working out a transition
> plan that works is not easy and takes time, too.

I thought that was the point of unstable.

Really, I don't mind having alt apt lines. I like collecting them! I don't
mind pulling in a few unstable packages on a stable system.

However, I don't think that this has much to do w/ the fact that I really
expect unstable to break everything. It did before for me. I didn't bitch.
I stopped running unstable at work. :)

Now I have a beater box at home that I upgrade daily. If things work
well here, then I use those packages on my stable box. Not hard.

Good day,

Fred Ollinger

Reply to: