> > > kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable" is > > problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time. > > Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is > usually stable enough for most applications plus the various software > packages are pretty up to date. >
I remember reading somewhere that security updates go to unstable first, then into "security", then testing... meaning that testing was the last to get security updates. Is this wrong?
