"Marc J. Driftmeyer" <m...@reanimality.com> writes: > On 06/17/2011 06:32 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If you want things that have passed QA, use Debian stable. Debian >> unstable is exactly what it says on the tin. > However, suggesting stable is a lame retort. I could never make that > excuse at NeXT nor Apple Engineering. Thank you for the praise! But I still have to say... it really isn't meant as a retort. Unstable is where things break. This isn't NeXT, or Apple Engineering, both of which are professional companies with full-time staff who are paid to ensure that users never see problems. Debian doesn't have that; unstable is basically our equivalent of internal engineering builds. Sometimes they're going to break. Sometimes they're going to break *hard*. If you can live with it breaking occasionally, it works well and gets you new software the fastest. I use it on several of my systems. And filing a bug when it breaks is absolutely the right thing to do. But if you're running unstable, to some extent you *are* QA. :) I was just worried that you didn't know what you'd gotten into when you sounded pretty annoyed by it. If it's going to really annoy you when we break something hard, unstable might not be the best place to be. I'm not trying to be defensive, just saying that while we try to avoid stuff like this, sometimes it ends up happening, and one has to back out of a mess. > When everything in the depends are covered these drivers are far more > stable than they have ever been in the past and I credit the nvidia > package maintainers, solely, for such efforts. Pretty much all Andreas there. He's doing a fantastic job. :) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
