On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 05:19:09PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > I would like to object to your labeling according to "risk". I don't think > running unstable or testing is a high risk per se. As long as one doesn't > upgrade onself into a terrible situation and knows how to downgrade a package, > it is not much of a problem to run Debian unstable on one's work machine.
I think we should generally discourage the use of unstable to users; or at least not advocate it. The support pressure is just much higher than for testing, we frequently get support issues in #debian where unstable users have problems with buggy maintainer scripts and cannot deal with manually fixing them. This is in line with what #debian regulars recommend; i.e. running stable+backports or testing, but not unstable. So I think "stable+proposed updates" or "stable+backports" should be "low" risk and "testing" should be "medium" risk, while unstable should not be mentioned on that page at all. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
