On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 22:52:35 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: >> the issue is not necessarily manpower itself, but rather the value of >> volunteers' time. it makes little sense to duplicate work for testing >> and unstable when unstable will eventually overwrite testing. > > The same reasoning (on a larger scale) could be applied to stable and > would lead to the conclusion that security updates make little sense, > since a new stable release will eventually replace the current stable on > end-users' boxes (e.g.: etch replaced sarge, lenny replaced etch, and > so forth). > > I am not convinced that this would be a reasonable conclusion...
this line of reasoning is a converse accident logical fallacy [1]. stable security support is not testing security support (they are both separate special cases of a logical concept "security support"), so the same rules/philosophy should not apply to both. mike [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
