Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
On 2004-06-20, Michael Satterwhite penned:
>
> I'll take this for one vote that testing is actually a better choice
> than unstable.
No. You said that you read the arguments for and against testing and
unstable. If so, you know that if a bug gets through to testing, it can
be there for months -- much longer than it would be in unstable.
Testing's current stability is an anomolous situation caused by the fact
that it's so close to becoming the next stable. If you're trying to
avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run stable and live with
the age of the packages.
--
monique
Reply to: