Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #183345

Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

> From: songbird@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 i"m using a lot of
> things from there. more like one or two items.
>> Unstable
>> contains packages that the developer hopes and expects will migrate to
>> Testing and end up in Stable without incident, and he"s usually right.
>> Experimental, on the other hand, contains packages that the developer
>> wants people to experiment with. It is not a mistake or policy
>> violation to upload a package known to contain a grave bug to
>> Experimental.
> i usually check if there is a newer version there
> if i"m experiencing a bug in a version that is in
> testing or unstable to see if the newer version solves
> the bug. most recently it was libreoffice, but the
> newer version didn"t make any difference so i purged
> it and reinstalled the testing version again (and then
> worked around the issue).

between sid and experimental it is only a pound sign move from one
source line to the next. An update will satisfy your curiosity without
an upgrade. Last I checked there were only 2-3 kernels that were
under experimentation, nothing else different from my sid installation.
Do I care to mess around with linux-rc ? Not really, so I just went
back. Possibly after stretch stability there may be a ton of stuff.
By the way, 4.12 was announced as stable and there is no 4.13
yet. https://www.kernel.org/

> songbird

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable Jason Cohen <jwittlincohen@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 02:20 +0200
  Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable Bob Weber <bobrweber@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 03:40 +0200
  Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 04:10 +0200
    Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-07-06 04:30 +0200
      Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:40 +0200
      Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-07-06 10:10 +0200
        Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:40 +0200
        Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-07-06 14:00 +0200
          Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-07-06 14:30 +0200
  Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-07-06 06:00 +0200
    Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-07-06 13:50 +0200
  Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2017-07-06 13:50 +0200
    Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-07-06 14:10 +0200
      Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2017-07-06 23:00 +0200
        Re: Relative stability of Testing vs Unstable Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-07 19:20 +0200

csiph-web