On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:27:22 +0200 Rico Secada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:35:56 -0700 > Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:25:11PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > The crucial bit that many miss is that new packages don't move > > > > into testing unless they've sat in unstable with no new bug > > > > reports for 10 days (I think). > > > > > > Or 5 days (urgency=medium in changelog). > > > Or 2 days (urgency=high). > > > Or 1 day if it's a bad enough problem (urgency=emergency). > > > > thanks Joey. > > > > In your opinion, am I right in my assessment that testing is more > > likely to be in an unusable state for longer than sid? (at least at > > the package, not system, level)? > > That's contrary to my experience. > > The must critical bugs gets caught before they enter into testing so in > testing they are non-existant. > > Testing are more stable and a much "safer-bet" as a desktop system than > unstable. > > At our office we run stable for our servers, but testing for our > desktops. In the last couple of years we haven't found any problems > what so ever running testing. It is a very stable desktop system. > > > I have been making this claim for a while, but it's really only based > > on my intuition of the situation and not any direct experience. > > > > A > > > I had the same question as the OP and this thread/post answered it. I installed debian stabled "etch" on my desktop system. This was my first step into the linux world. I found that it was amazingly stable but the software was out of date. I found I had to compile a lot of things from source, which was good because I learned a lot! But now for my new desktop system I am ready to migrate it into testing. Thanks everyone. Amit -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
