Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-07 Thread Fungi4All
> From: songb...@anthive.com > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > John Hasler wrote: >> songbird writes: >>> i"ve been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental >>> for quite some time now. >> >> Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish. > of course. :) it is not like

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-06 Thread songbird
John Hasler wrote: > songbird writes: >> i've been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental >> for quite some time now. > > Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish. of course. :) it is not like i'm using a lot of things from there. more like one or two items.

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-06 Thread tomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:52:13AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > tomas writes: > > Big, heavily interdependent systems [...] > I have full Perl and Python environments and I sometimes run CFD, FEM > and CAD packages. I think that the key is that I scan

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-06 Thread John Hasler
songbird writes: > i've been running testing with bits from unstable and/or experimental > for quite some time now. Experimental is a completely different kettle of fish. Unstable contains packages that the developer hopes and expects will migrate to Testing and end up in Stable without incident,

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-06 Thread John Hasler
tomas writes: > Big, heavily interdependent systems consisting of lots of packages > (big language environments à la Perl, Python, Java -- but most > prominently big desktop environments) are especially vulnerable to > version churn, which typically happens in testing once in its life > cycle. I h

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-06 Thread songbird
Jason Cohen wrote: ... > My question is how Debian Testing and Unstable compare in terms of > stability.  The Debian documentation suggests that Testing is more > stable than Unstable because packages are delayed by 2-10 days and can > only be promoted if no RC bugs are opened in that period [1].

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-06 Thread John Hasler
> My experience, solely as a user, has been that sometimes the unstable > distribution breaks and you're hosed. I can't remember when I was > last burned by running testing. I can't remember when I was last burned by Unstable. It is necessary to follow debian-dev to know when not to upgrade. I

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-06 Thread Fungi4All
I can not help much in developing or bug analysis, so my contribution has been to test what is handed out to me for testing. I have yet not been able to contribute much as nothing seems to break in testing or sid (amd64 openbox/lxde) ever. Sometimes I wonder when I read the list or archives thing

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-06 Thread tomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:24:08PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Jimmy Johnson writes: > > From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before > > making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security > > updates (in the form

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-05 Thread Joe Pfeiffer
My experience, solely as a user, has been that sometimes the unstable distribution breaks and you're hosed. I can't remember when I was last burned by running testing.

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-05 Thread Jimmy Johnson
On 07/05/2017 07:24 PM, John Hasler wrote: Jimmy Johnson writes: From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more likely to be consistent duri

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-05 Thread John Hasler
Jimmy Johnson writes: > From what I read, very serious bugs are likely to be caught before > making it to Testing, while Unstable benefits from getting security > updates (in the form of new upstream releases) sooner, and is more > likely to be consistent during transitions. Unstable is not requir

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-05 Thread Jimmy Johnson
On 07/05/2017 05:17 PM, Jason Cohen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its reliability and security support. However, I recently began usin

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-05 Thread Bob Weber
On 7/5/17 8:17 PM, Jason Cohen wrote: > I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has > typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its > reliability and security support. However, I recently began using > Debian Stretch for my desktop and foresee a ne

Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

2017-07-05 Thread Jason Cohen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I've been using Debian for a number of years, but my experience has typically been with servers where I have used the Stable branch for its reliability and security support. However, I recently began using Debian Stretch for my desktop and foresee a