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.