Re: Debian - Release Cadence Options
Antoine Le Gonidec <vv221@debian.org> writes:
> In my 15 years of user support, a huge majority of reported problems
> were with testing. But the sample might be biased by testing being the
> one chosen by less experienced users, wrongly thinking it would be some
> kind of middle ground between stable and unstable.
I think so, but of course I don't really know.
All I want to be sure the original poster realizes is that if you use
unstable, your system *will* break sometimes in ways that you will have to
manually fix. I have a pretty light footprint on a system and things tend
to weirdly break less for me than for other people, and I still have to
semi-manually unbreak something at least a couple of times a year. (I also
run a testing system and have basically never had a problem with it, but
this is just one possibly unrepresentative data point.)
If you know how to do the things that I mentioned, unstable can be a great
experience. I've used unstable on some of my systems for something like 20
years now. But I'm pretty unphased by having to manually clean up
something or file a bug report and downgrade a package.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: