Re: How stable is "testing"?
>Dear community,
>
>I've noticed that there are some programs in testing that I'd
>like to use (and at least one that I have to use), but I'm
>very scared of it not working correctly or breaking badly
>when, say, I'd need to get something done fast.
>
>So, I'd like to ask you: how stable is "testing" compared to
>potato?
Testing is very new, so, time will tell it's stability.
However, based on unstable's performance, I've never had downtime greater than a
day since Potato was released. Of course, I don't use my computer all the time,
and I update just a couple times a week. But, most bugs seem squashed fairly
quickly or at least there is a workaround posted somewhere.
If your machine is mission critical (server), I wouldn't do the upgrade; but, if
it is a workstation, I don't see any harm. Perhaps updating right before you
leave work might be best. This way, if something breaks, it might possibly be
fixed by the next morning.
I wonder how many people really use testing? Do people downgrade from unstable
to testing or upgrade from stable to testing? Where are the users coming from???
This would be interesting to find out. Aren't there some graphs showing download
usage at Debian?
Scott
Reply to: