People at my site wish to migrate away from Debian stable to something more current. I understand that unstable is more bleeding edge than testing, and that there is some kind of automatic process whereby packages migrate from unstable to testing. (That automatic process makes sure there are no (critical?) bugs filed against the package, and I think that a package needs to ripen for some time in unstable, before being allowed to migrate to testing.)
One can compare the distributions along several dimensions. Here are some of them. I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Below, I'm arguing in favor of unstable and against testing (as devil's advocate, if you will). What do you think about those arguments? Prove me wrong! 8-) * Number of bugs. One might think that testing has fewer bugs than unstable. But the truth is, since testing is an automatic process against filed bug reports, bugs can always creep in there before they are discovered and filed. And, what's more, problems will be fixed much quicker in unstable than in testing, due to the ripening required in testing. * Security fixes. Security fixes come automatically with the new package installs in unstable, whereas the security fixes department in the testing distribution is not to be relied upon. Kai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
