Re: testing or unstable?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 06:13:12PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On 2009-02-17_13:02:38, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> > I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the
> > official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch.
> >
> > Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version
> > for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking
> > of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good.
> >
> > Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable?
> >
> > Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply
> > Rodolfo
> >
> Rodolfo,
> I have a different take on this issue. Rather than discuss the
> relative merits of stable, testing, I think you should consider the
> merits of lenny, squeeze. Using code names (lenny, squeeze, etc.)
> allows you to choose when big changes in your system happen. I would
> not run testing during the next several weeks because there was a
> freeze on moving packages from unstable into testing in preparation
> for the official release of lenny. As soon as lenny became stable, the
> freeze was lifted and all sorts of flaky stuff that the release
> manager wouldn't let into a product that was about to be released has
> come flooding into testing. The point is that the stability of testing
> is time dependent. Right after a release it can be somewhat
> unstable. For a _long_ duration before a release, it is quite stable,
> and much more modern than the official stable. I always use code names
> in my sources.list. That way I am never hit with a bunch of changes
> right after a release. In a little while, after the flood of held-back
> packages abates, I will dist-upgrade to squeeze. Or, if there is a
> persistent flood of questions about new packages in squeeze on
> debian-user, I will defer the dist-upgrade until things settle down.
I agree with this policy whole-heartedly. I just found out that I had a few
etch machines that had 'stable' in the sources.list. PITA.
My new standard practice for my desktop machines is to upgrade to the next
version when the green line drops below the blue line on this graph:
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
Obviously, the green and blue lines are at roughly the same place right now,
because squeeze is just a copy of lenny. But give it a few weeks and the green
line will go rocketing up. It used to be that I'd upgrade once the RC number
got "low enough" (around 300 for my sarge->etch upgrade), but now they're
tracking stable RC bugs as well, which makes it easier.
Cheers,
--
Eric Gerlach, Network Administrator
Federation of Students
University of Waterloo
p: (519) 888-4567 x36329
e: egerlach@feds.uwaterloo.ca
Reply to: