Hi, Martin Kuball writes:
> I'v recently started to mix some packages from testing into my woody > installation. Having encountered no problems so far I would like to > go for more. [...] Should I go all the way to unstable or I run stable on most of the machines I take care of. If for some reason (usually hardware-related) I need a newer version of a package, I do a backport from unstable to stable. I don't use testing at all (see below), and run unstable on very few machines for evaluation and development. > is testing a good compromise between stability and new features? Ironically enough, testing is sometimes less stable than unstable, because fixes take up to two weeks to propagate. Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!