> You contradict yourself - if you were tracking woody you were tracking > unstable. Since you were tracking unstable before I don't see why > it's such a big deal to track it now ...
Maybe it's not worth a discussion, but when I started using woody before, the stability of this machine was much less critical than it is now (nobody else relied on it then, but several people/machines do now). Also, I figure that "unstable" at the start of development of a new release (sid now) is probably a bit more unstable than "unstable" near the end of development of the release (woody of 2 months ago). > > The new release system mimics (as far as I can tell) the BSD > development track: there's "really stable", "sorta stable", and "not > guaranteed to even work". Many find this arrangement preferable. So will testing always be available? I like the idea. I'm just not used to packages being rolled back in a release. But if I have apt-get always looking at testing, maybe that's what will make me happy.