Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:24:08PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Jimmy Johnson writes:
> > From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before
> > making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security
> > updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more
> > likely to be consistent during transitions.
>
> Unstable is not required to be consistent at all.
>
> That said, I've always used it on my desktop and have not had a problem
> for at least ten years. However, I use FVWM rather than a desktop
> environment.
I think that's an important point: it's not only "what do you use it
for" or "how much you enjoy tinkering" but also "what is on your system".
Big, heavily interdependent systems consisting of lots of packages
(big language environments à la Perl, Python, Java -- but most prominently
big desktop environments) are especially vulnerable to version churn,
which typically happens in testing once in its life cycle.
People with a simple setup (e.g. just a window manager) perhaps won't
even notice anything happened.
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlld7fUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbJnwCfTj6q41PaTpNujGElKv7PQA+y
kBIAnjvSouQZysPYLU3SxOov+1RuX3ls
=lKZ3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: