On Sun, 2020-04-05 at 19:51 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > For the scope of "stable-updates" only then, would you say it makes > sense to just use "stable" instead, for the reasons I mentioned? > What do you say would be the negative impact of that (if any), since > the repository is already enabled by default and not using it is > equivalent to not updating the system until a point release gets out?
Changing "stable" only happens at point releases, since it requires (amongst other things) combined GPG signatures from the FTP Team and Release Team. It's also a multiple hour process, involving both ftp and release teams together with the press and images teams, updated installers and so on. Removing stable-updates would mean that the only way that some changes - for instance, timezone updates, clamav updates, critical regressions introduced in a point release but not noticed until afterwards - would reach users would be for us to perform a point release or for the users to consume proposed-updates. I'm not convinced that either of those is a useful alternative. Regards, Adam
