On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 05:38 Dave Sherohman <d...@sherohman.org> wrote:
> 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 is superseded or falls into disuse, or is simply abandoned by its 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 > Okay. This is pretty much what I was thinking, and is as expected. Thank you to those who gave helpful, constructive replies.
