Re: change sources.list to follow testing, not jessie

[Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>]

On Friday 17 April 2015 17:18:59 The Wanderer wrote:
> On 04/17/2015 at 11:41 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Friday 17 April 2015 15:51:23 The Wanderer wrote:
> >> On 04/17/2015 at 10:18 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >>> A valid point.  But changing code name reduces the risk of
> >>> absentmindedly upgrading and then thinking oops.  Particularly in
> >>> the case of the OP, who expected changing Jessie to testing now,
> >>> to have some impact and be a valid test of the result of tracking
> >>> testing.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure he was. I understood his reluctance to test "for fear
> >> of causing immediate problems" as being based on the idea that "if
> >> I converted it wrong, or to the wrong thing, then trying to use the
> >> result might cause problems" - not on the idea that testing
> >> currently contains something different from jessie.
> >
> > He was discussing changing all his sources to testing in order to
> > track testing not Jessie.
> >
> > He said:
> >
> > "Running `aptitude update' with the changes" (from Jessie to testing)
> > "in place does not produce any output that looks problematice (to
> > me).  But maybe that is not a thorough test?"
> >
> > Having the changes in place would make no difference at all at the
> > moment.  So it is not a test at all.
>
> It's a test of whether the conversion of the sources.list was done
> correctly - and of whether the newly listed sources are actually valid,
> hosting actual repositories. It's not necessarily an exhaustive test of
> that latter, but it's probably enough for most purposes.

We read it differently.  Perhaps he meant both. ;-)

Lisi