On Friday 17 April 2015 17:18:59 The Wanderer wrote: > On 04/17/2015 at 11:41 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 17 April 2015 15:51:23 The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 04/17/2015 at 10:18 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >>> A valid point. But changing code name reduces the risk of > >>> absentmindedly upgrading and then thinking oops. Particularly in > >>> the case of the OP, who expected changing Jessie to testing now, > >>> to have some impact and be a valid test of the result of tracking > >>> testing. > >> > >> I'm not sure he was. I understood his reluctance to test "for fear > >> of causing immediate problems" as being based on the idea that "if > >> I converted it wrong, or to the wrong thing, then trying to use the > >> result might cause problems" - not on the idea that testing > >> currently contains something different from jessie. > > > > He was discussing changing all his sources to testing in order to > > track testing not Jessie. > > > > He said: > > > > "Running `aptitude update' with the changes" (from Jessie to testing) > > "in place does not produce any output that looks problematice (to > > me). But maybe that is not a thorough test?" > > > > Having the changes in place would make no difference at all at the > > moment. So it is not a test at all. > > It's a test of whether the conversion of the sources.list was done > correctly - and of whether the newly listed sources are actually valid, > hosting actual repositories. It's not necessarily an exhaustive test of > that latter, but it's probably enough for most purposes.
We read it differently. Perhaps he meant both. ;-) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201504171756.30204.lisi.re...@gmail.com
