On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:17:25 -0800 "G. L. `Griz' Inabnit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From my experience, using "stable", "unstable", "frozen/testing" is a > bad > idea. Use the release name. It's safer. This way, if/when frozen goes stable, > you won't find yourself running a fully beta release, unexpectedly. How is this? Unless Debian policy changes, unstable will always remain unstable, and testing will always remain testing. You're worse off if you're tracking woody and woody becomes stable. Then you'll find that quite a few packages have gone AWOL because they or their dependencies are in a broken or semi-broken state, which testing, as its name implies, has a higher tolerance for. If you want proof, examine the posts in debian-user from the time when potato became stable (sorry, the year and month escapes me). There wasn't a testing distribution then, but the posts clearly show the effect of a potato that suddenly had to be as bug-free as administratively possible.
