Re: sidux

[Rico Secada <coolzone@it.dk>]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:35:56 -0700
Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:25:11PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > The crucial bit that many miss is that new packages don't move
> > > into testing unless they've sat in unstable with no new bug
> > > reports for 10 days (I think).
> > 
> > Or 5 days (urgency=medium in changelog).
> > Or 2 days (urgency=high).
> > Or 1 day if it's a bad enough problem (urgency=emergency).
> 
> thanks Joey.
> 
> In your opinion, am I right in my assessment that testing is more
> likely to be in an unusable state for longer than sid?  (at least at
> the package, not system, level)?

That's contrary to my experience.

The must critical bugs gets caught before they enter into testing so in
testing they are non-existant.

Testing are more stable and a much "safer-bet" as a desktop system than
unstable.

At our office we run stable for our servers, but testing for our
desktops. In the last couple of years we haven't found any problems
what so ever running testing. It is a very stable desktop system.

> I have been making this claim for a while, but it's really only based
> on my intuition of the situation and not any direct experience.
> 
> A
>