In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Sanders writes: >On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: >> > debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using >> > it for such does not require any more caution about upgrades than >> > using debian 'stable' or debian 'frozen'. >> >> Like during the Perl transition period, or when a recent libstdc++ >> broke apt, or when su stopped being able to su, or when .... >> >> Need I continue? > >i repeat: "[using unstable] does not require any more caution about >upgrades than [using stable]" >
... so why not just package up unstable and release it without fixing bugs if using them is the same? I think I'm missing something here. Even if you're cautious, isn't unstable more likely to have bugs (the RC list comes to mind) and other non-tested problems than a stable tested release? I can't help thinking it's called 'unstable' for a reason... Confused is, Nils.