On 2004-06-20, Michael Satterwhite penned: > > I'll take this for one vote that testing is actually a better choice > than unstable.
No. You said that you read the arguments for and against testing and unstable. If so, you know that if a bug gets through to testing, it can be there for months -- much longer than it would be in unstable. Testing's current stability is an anomolous situation caused by the fact that it's so close to becoming the next stable. If you're trying to avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run stable and live with the age of the packages. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
