;>>>>> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> writes:
Luca> So what you are worried is the combination of a testing
Luca> installation from~one year ago, that is otherwise never
Luca> touched for say another year, and also that has one of those
Luca> 23 packages installed in the old version, and also that same
Luca> package of those 23 gets rearranged?
I find I'm joining the growing number of people who cannot assume good
faith.
I'm disappointed that you choose to diminish others arguments, working
to find the quickest way to dismiss the contributions of people who are
interacting with you rather than to explore what they are saying and
see if there is something you can learn from their contributions.
So, let's rephrase this, trying to make the situation I'm talking about
likely rather than working to dismiss it:
> So what you are worried is the combination of a testing
> installation from just before the unblocks migrate into testing, that
> is next upgraded a few months after bookworm releases, which that has one of
> those
Luca> 23 packages installed, and one of those packages gets
rearranged?
Yes, that's the situation I'm considering.
The difference in how I presented things and how you presented things
are:
* You chose a much older initial testing image than was necessary.
* In the phrases where I edited your language, you chose to emphasize
what you see as a small number of packages, and to amplify what you
see as improbabilities.
Instead, you could have presented my argument in a neutral manner,
working to confirm understanding, and actually treated my contribution
with respect.
