Re: sidux

[Johannes Wiedersich <johannes@physik.blm.tu-muenchen.de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joey Hess wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> 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)?
> 
> No, I don't think so. If a package has a bug that makes it unusable,
> then 
> 
> a) Someone will generally notice a bug in the two weeks before that buggy
>    package gets into testing, and file a RC bug to keep it out.
> b) If a bug that makes a package unusable does get into testing, it
>    can be fixed in 2 days in most cases.
> c) The graph of release critical bugs[1] currently shows 1750 in unstable,
>    and only 571 of those affect testing. (658 of them affect *stable*).
>    http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/

I second the experience that there are not too many, if any serious
problems with testing. I've been using testing on 'newer' computers --
especially laptops -- that wouldn't run well with stable for a total of
years and never had any serious problem.

Testing has the benefit that -- unlike unstable -- it will eventually
become stable. I enjoy the 'quiescence' that sets in after testing
becomes stable and there is nothing happening to my system, except for
trivial security fixes. If you are like me and generally prefer 'stable'
software, than 'testing' is your route.

Just my 0.02

Johannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIBF1SC1NzPRl9qEURAgq6AJ9jAaY5Ivr/OpARbfUhmI8y51C2JgCeMMYp
n0cG3hlPJi8QsRhQs11fFd8=
=LenL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----