In message <20000403204917.A7289@taz.net.au>, Craig Sanders writes:
>On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using
>> > it for such does not require any more caution about upgrades than
>> > using debian 'stable' or debian 'frozen'.
>> Like during the Perl transition period, or when a recent libstdc++
>> broke apt, or when su stopped being able to su, or when ....
>> Need I continue?
>i repeat: "[using unstable] does not require any more caution about
>upgrades than [using stable]"
... so why not just package up unstable and release it without fixing bugs if using them is the same? I think I'm missing something here. Even if you're cautious, isn't unstable more likely to have bugs (the RC list comes to mind) and other non-tested problems than a stable tested release?
I can't help thinking it's called 'unstable' for a reason...