[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

From: songbird@anthive.com
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org

John Hasler wrote:
> songbird writes:
>> i"ve been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental
>> for quite some time now.
> Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish.

of course. :) it is not like i"m using a lot of
things from there. more like one or two items.

> Unstable
> contains packages that the developer hopes and expects will migrate to
> Testing and end up in Stable without incident, and he"s usually right.
> Experimental, on the other hand, contains packages that the developer
> wants people to experiment with. It is not a mistake or policy
> violation to upload a package known to contain a grave bug to
> Experimental.

i usually check if there is a newer version there
if i"m experiencing a bug in a version that is in
testing or unstable to see if the newer version solves
the bug. most recently it was libreoffice, but the
newer version didn"t make any difference so i purged
it and reinstalled the testing version again (and then
worked around the issue).

between sid and experimental it is only a pound sign move from one
source line to the next.  An update will satisfy your curiosity without
an upgrade.  Last I checked there were only 2-3 kernels that were
under experimentation, nothing else different from my sid installation.
Do I care to mess around with linux-rc ?  Not really, so I just went
back.  Possibly after stretch stability there may be a ton of stuff.

By the way, 4.12 was announced as stable and there is no 4.13 
yet. https://www.kernel.org/


Reply to: