> Certainly not. If you want unstable packages, then use *unstable*. If > you want to help test the next Debian release, then use *testing*. If > you want something that will always work, then use *stable*.
Yes, I've tried them all. * Unstable was a bit too unstable for my taste. * Stable is fine, but I don't really enjoy using only old software. Often there comes new interesting software in testing, which really is "stable enough" for me and installing it in stable is hard (download+check dependencies+compile+install) and could easily lead to bad problems (library incompatibilities etc.). * So that's why my choice is and will be testing. 98% of the time it fits my bill perfectly. And sometimes (I hope) I can file an useful bug report which can help the development of debian. It's just sad that rarely testing gets 'broken' as badly as it's now, but if it can't be avoided then it can't be avoided and that's it. I can live with it: just postpone 'dist-upgrade' long enough or change to unstable for a while. My purpose was not to complain. I have some coding experience (not much but some) and I can only imagine what kind of mess so large library transition could be with all those new bugs and problems hiding around. I really appriciate that great job you volunteer for, really. I just wanted to share my view to this subject (and I'm quite sure there are hundreds of other testing users who think similar way as I do), but as I wrote earlier in this message if this subject has already been dicided by pros and 'breaking' testing once in a while cannot be avoided, then let it be that way. Thank you for your answers, -- Joona Kiiski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
