Re: Incoming
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:04:25AM +0200, fischer wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:39:30PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > If you weren't following unstable on critical machines, maybe that
> > > > wouldn't happen. Then again, I guess as a developer, we are all oblidged
> > > > to waste cpu and bandwidth (both of which we have plenty of, of course,
> > > > there seems to be no end to our resources....yeah, right) just so you can
> > > > fix your ill maintained systems quickly.
> > >
> > > debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using it
> > > for such does not require any more caution about upgrades than using
> > Sorry but your argument is flawed in that stable changes rarely, so there
> > is little to go wrong and require "quick updates" to fix problematic
> > things (like a new perl, a new libc, a new kernel....).
>
> what's that flame war all about? i appreciate people who fiddle with
> unstable releases, they make them stable, whereas the people fiddling with
> stable releases hopefully make them more stable.
Nothing is wrong with following unstable. But I don't think we should keep
around resources like incoming mirrors simply because he runs unstable on
critical systems and is worried about getting them fixed quickly. The idea
of unstable is tests and failures, not about supporting his critical
machines.
> if we had more bandwith, debates like these wouldn't arise, right?
I wish it were that easy :)
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: