On 2013-08-28 10:42, Ian Jackson wrote:
As Peter Palfrader points out stable-updates allows more review, because it doesn't suffer from the process problems caused by the need for secrecy. stable-updates are also made in less of a hurry.
Iff people actually test proposed-updates. The feedback so far has been very slim. (Probably nobody knows about stable-announce.)
Furthermore, from the pov of the user, stable-updates are less disruptive. They can choose to take a point release when it comes out, or to defer it. When they do take a point release that can be a planned activity so that they're ready to deal with any regressions.
Only if you mirror everything locally. And if you do that, you could also cherry-pick security updates.
Kind regards Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/fc74728f44519605e46b79e9b56c1...@hub.kern.lc
