> "Hall Stevenson" wrote: > > > > > Disinterest in old versions is part of it - but > > > > also, package maintainers usually can't update > > > > the versions in stable except for security problems > > > > and the like. The upload simply wouldn't be accepted. > > > > So if a "bug" isn't found during a package's testing phase, > > it's not going to get fixed ?? I'm referring to non-security > > bugs, of course. Almost sounds "arrogant", as if someone > > doesn't want to admit that they missed something... > > No, it's an admission that any new uploads to `stable' could > introduce worse problems.
I saw a very good reason right after posting my message. It was more or less along the same lines as yours, in that fixing one bug may introduce others... Better to live with one and otherwise remain 'stable', I suppose. I agree with that philosophy. > This hasn't materialized so far, but it has created a pretty > solid near-bleeding-edge distribution (testing) that I now use > instead of stable. You need a good connection to the net though. I follow 'unstable' myself. Regards Hall
