On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 03:39:15PM -0700, debuser@platinum.globalmart.com wrote: > > You contradict yourself - if you were tracking woody you were tracking > > unstable. Since you were tracking unstable before I don't see why > > it's such a big deal to track it now ... > > Maybe it's not worth a discussion, but when I started using woody before, > the stability of this machine was much less critical than it is now > (nobody else relied on it then, but several people/machines do now). > Also, I figure that "unstable" at the start of development of a new > release (sid now) is probably a bit more unstable than "unstable" near the > end of development of the release (woody of 2 months ago). You might be right in your assumption, but my (anecdotal) evidence is that unstable isn't very unstable at all. As long as you review what exactly apt-get has decided it's going to do today and upgrade selectively at times. Having said that I wouldn't run unstable on a server I didn't have console access to 24/7, and probably not even then. > > The new release system mimics (as far as I can tell) the BSD > > development track: there's "really stable", "sorta stable", and "not > > guaranteed to even work". Many find this arrangement preferable. > > So will testing always be available? I like the idea. I'm just not used to > packages being rolled back in a release. But if I have apt-get always > looking at testing, maybe that's what will make me happy. The way I understand it is this: stable <--- frozen <--- testing <--- unstable whereas the old way was stable <--- frozen <--- unstable Cheers, -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Inc. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:nnorman@micromuse.com | -- Patton
Attachment:
pgpA6ACDBp101.pgp
Description: PGP signature