On 2004-04-16, Chris Metzler penned: [snip]
> > But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing > and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that > their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're > fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence is to facilitate > the development process that produces stable releases. Users may > decide to track unstable or testing (and many of us do); but the > existence of those distros is to help the developers do what needs to > be done to get packages into good shape and get releases out. Period. I agree, with one caveat: > And thus, the most important thing is that the descriptions of these > distros be clear to developers, and that their functions be useful for > developers. If that's the most important thing, the very next most important thing is that the descriptions make clear to non-developer users that testing and unstable are not intended for them. I see no such advisory in the current descriptions. > "Re-branding" the distros, and changing their descriptions, isn't > sensible: testing and unstable don't cleanly fall into categories > that are sensible for users, and trying to label them that way is (as > Monique said) trying to assign characteristics that don't exist. But > that's not a bug; that's a feature. It's intentional. Their purpose > is to facilitate the job of the developers. [snip] -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
