1 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> said: |
2 |
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> |
4 |
wrote: |
5 |
> > > What? I am talking about exotic arches and I didn't say to drop to |
6 |
> > > entire stable tree. Just to shrink it in order to keep it up to |
7 |
> > > date more easily |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > But my question stands: what really is the advantage of having a |
10 |
> > stable tree, when you could better invest your time in keeping the |
11 |
> > testing tree up to date and working? Most production systems are |
12 |
> > running x86, right? Are stable versions of minority architecture |
13 |
> > installations really that much more stable than testing versions? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Because a stable tree it is supposed to work. Testing tree on the other |
16 |
> hand is vulnerable to breakages from time to time. We can't always |
17 |
> ensure a working testing tree. We are people not machines. We tend to |
18 |
> brake things and this is way we have the testing branch. |
19 |
|
20 |
also the stable tree implies security support (GLSAs etc). |