On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 03:34:55PM -0400, Default User wrote: > What if a new Stable release introduces a major change to the existing > distribution technology or methodology? > > For example, a new default filesystem is introduced. Or something like > systemd infects the distribution or its rate of metastasis accelerates, > etc. Or an important package management system or communication protocol > is superseded or falls into disuse, or is simply abandoned by its > developers or maintainers. > > I was wondering if an existing Unstable setup could diverge so far from > Stable that major surgery would be necessary, or even complete replacement > with Stable, followed by conversion to contemporaneous Unstable.
I think the core misunderstanding here is that you seem to be assuming that, when a new stable comes out, a new unstable is created to go with it. This is not the case. *NOTHING* ever goes from stable into unstable. *EVERYTHING* in stable[1] got there by way of unstable (with a stop off in testing along the way). If a major change happens in stable, then it already happened some months or years ago in unstable: - New filesystems start in unstable, then move to stable. - systemd for Debian was first implemented in unstable, then made its way into stable. - If apt were to somehow be replaced, that process would happen in unstable and the new package management tools would first appear there, before migrating into stable. So, no, a new stable release would never break unstable. Any breakage that may happen would be flowing in the other direction (something coming from unstable breaks stable), and even that is extremely rare. [1] ...except security updates, which have their own path into stable that doesn't pass through unstable, but they're not going to be introducing major changes anyhow. -- Dave Sherohman
