On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:48:37PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Harald Dunkel wrote: > > What I meant was that the "unstable" version is a little bit too > > "experimental" for me. Recovery from a broken grub2 upgrade can be > > _pretty_ difficult. This means there is a high risk for doing > > grub2 upgrades, even if the code itself is very stable. > > > > IMHO the high risk should be reduced by better testing in the > > "experimental" branch, before a new version is promoted to > > "unstable". > > How do you feel about this today? Probably for your needs pinning > grub to "testing" might be a little better, but regardless, I've found > the level of scary much lower lately.
TBH, I'm not sure we'd get very much real-world testing out of experimental, and thus it might not make a whole lot of difference if that were done before promoting to unstable. One thing I have started doing fairly routinely before uploading major GRUB changes is to test them in a farm of virtual machines with various setups. It's not perfect and doesn't catch everything, but it's definitely shielded users of unstable from a number of major problems. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
