On Tuesday 29 April 2003 11:05 am, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> sid=unstable - you know that, don't you?
> >
> > We need someone to test unstable, don't we? We can not realistically
> > test our distribution if the only people running it are those with many
> > computers who put it on one they aren't really using. Please don't give
> > our testers crap for actually testing the system in real life
> > situations.
>
> If somebody _needs_ his computer working 100% ("I've got an essay due
> in 24 hours...") and runs unstable on it imho some reminder that this
> might be a bad choice is *required*.Running unstable in general is no big deal - in fact I would go so far as to say that on many days, an unstable snapshot is better than a commercial Linux stable release - but people should be exercising some significant care when upgrading, especially under deadlines like this. Lots of people (like me) have no problem running unstable, encountering and dealing with bugs, but people in this position need to take responsibility for introducing new code into their own systems. In other words, if you have serious (non-Debian) work to do on an unstable machine that is functioning properly, don't upgrade - doing this is like asking, "are there any new bugs I can work on?" If you don't really want to work on those bugs right then, wait! - Keegan
