| 1 |
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:06:59 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > That's the whole point. ebuilds need to be thoroughly tested before |
| 4 |
> > being marked stable, so you need a testing branch. |
| 5 |
> > Without it, your stable branch would not be. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I am a long time ~arch-only user and have/had less problems, than friends |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Spoken like a true geek :) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> using the stable tree. Plus if there is a problem, my friends |
| 12 |
> with stable will hit it too some days/week later - and I am there |
| 13 |
> 'support', so it is good for me, if I already found a solution. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Oh, there's more :) I too have found ~arch to be extremely reliable. The |
| 16 |
main downside is the extra time spent on updates, which could be a killer |
| 17 |
in a production environment. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Head: (n.) the part of a disk drive which detects sectors and decides |
| 24 |
which of the two possible values to return: 'lose a turn' or 'bankrupt.' |
Archives