-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 18 March 2004 17:31, Brian Nelson wrote: > Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thursday 18 March 2004 14:28, Monique Y. Herman wrote: > >> What sorts of testing would you want to do on your testing machine? The > >> testing distro is a little odd in that it's really intended for > >> developers, not users. It's "the stuff they're working on for the next > >> release of stable," not necessarily "the stuff that's more stable than > >> unstable but newer than stable." This is a subtle but important > >> difference. For example, security updates will make it into testing > >> *after* they make it into both unstable and stable. > > > > I do development on the machine running Sarge. The package list in the > > stable list gets a bit dated for me. They, however, are perfect for the > > machine that *HAS* to be up and stable. I don't want that machine > > anywhere near the cutting edge. > > However, testing tends to be more broken than unstable. Testing works > well right now since we're near a release and almost everything in there > is in a releasable state, but after sarge releases, watch out.
I'm sure I'm missing something here. I would expect that the Testing version becomes more unstable after the current Sid becomes the Testing version (which is why I wouldn't update from Sarge to ??? for a few months). But are you *REALLY* saying that the new Testing version will be more unstable than the new Unstable version?? Something seems wrong with that picture. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAWjwmjeziQOokQnARAiY/AJ4rT4z+38FsEPm1DUX2p0QhOCduigCgoNTo EZuCQJKsYrA9VJsKA9ecSLU= =zaSc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
