Re: Reporting bugs in Stable

[Ihor Antonov <ngor@antonovs.family>]

On Sunday, 19 April 2020 23:30:43 PDT Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 19 apr 20, 13:28:57, Ihor Antonov wrote:
> > Reporting from Debian Sid, everything is quite stable. I do run ZFS on
> > root
> > and make snapshots prior to big upgrades as a pre-caution, but so far
> > I did not have a reason to revert anything.
> 
> It's just a matter of time. Even if Debian does much more automated
> testing now than in the past some serious issues could still slip
> through.

I know, for me this is exactly the point: unstable becomes stable only if 
someone uses it and finds out issues, reports/fixes them. 

> > I was using Archlinux for a long time, and I can say that Sid feels
> > more stable than Archlinux, although software is less fresh. But
> > overall quite usable as a daily driver on my Lenovo X1 Extreme
> 
> As far as I know Archlinux is also not a beginners distro (like Mint or
> Ubuntu), so issues that may appear trivial to you can be major
> showstoppers for others.

Absolutely, no disputing that. 
I was trying to make a point that "unstable", despite scary name is quite 
usable. Also as someone mentioned - backports should be the first option to try 
if you run stable. I run a few servers stable + backports and everything is 
rock-solid.


But I am afraid that we have deviated from the original topic.  If I 
understood Carl correctly - he was expressing his pain because of  
bureaucratic scrutiny of filing bugs to stable that brings absolutely no 
results. I can't help much here as I am just a mere user, but IMHO if software 
in stable does not work - it is a severe bug. It has to be either fixed or 
software should be removed from stable.


Thanks

Ihor Antonov