On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- > > User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) > (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) > From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:14:03 -0500 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be > fixed in priority and removed in last resort after > discussion > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:05:45 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> Manoj Srivastava wrote: >>> I thought I had answered that. The only version that th project >>> releases for end users is stable. > >> Debian has been releasing versions of testing for end users for years. > > This is perhaps a matter of semantics. > > Where I come from, when you are testing something, it is not > "released". Releases, in my view, have release numbers, so people can > refer to them in bugs and recommend to other folks; our testing is > volatile, and changes at least daily. I do agree that microsoft has > blurred issue, but releasing things early to paying consumers to test, > but hey. > > We call it testing for a reason: it is a a branch for testing > what our next release will be. Do we try to keep it as close to a > viable release as we can? Sure. Do we try to make it easy for people to > test? Absolutely. But it would be diseembling to pretend that this > version is anything but a test version of a product under development, > and that stuff happens with development versions. > > People who run our test versions are part of our community, they > are helping us test our development packages. We will not make things > harder for them than they need to be, but they should also not be > shielded from the fact (and it is a fact) that what they are ending up > installing is a test version of a product under development. > > I also made an assumption: an end user is one who does not care > to be a early adopter guinea pig; and for people who do not care for > breakage and do not want to participate in product development and > testing, the only variant we produce is called the stable release
So? I've been using testing for years, and have found it to be remarkably stable - it's remarkable precisely because it IS 'testing'. Sometimes (rarely) things break, but that's something I prefer to live with so that I can have an up-to-date system. The current 'stable' is relatively up to date, as it's fairly recent, but there tends to be a long period between stable releases. Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
