Debian rolling shouldn't be testing [LWN.net]

Debian rolling shouldn't be testing

Posted May 6, 2011 21:31 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
In reply to: Debian rolling shouldn't be testing by ccurtis
Parent article: Debian rolling proposal gathers steam

People argue that Stable is for servers and Testing is for personal computers? I don't see how that works.

I think Stable is for applications that don't need new features or need compatibility with old stuff or don't want to encounter bugs; while Testing is for applications that need new features or compatibility with new stuff or where people want to help beta-test the next Stable.

Considering that servers and personal computers use rather different parts of Debian, I don't see how a line drawn between the release streams that way makes any sense.

As for your week-behind-Testing Fresh release stream, I don't see people using Testing then, which means you're just wasting a week. The only incentive to use Testing would be that you get features one week earlier and you get to help beta test Fresh. Doesn't seem like enough motivation.

(Log in to post comments)

Debian rolling shouldn't be testing

Posted May 6, 2011 22:38 UTC (Fri) by ccurtis (guest, #49713) [Link]

It's tough to tell what people are going to do, but I think you can help yourself by marketing things appropriately. Certainly, marketing it as I describe would help to bring about that situation.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rory_sutherland_life_le...

Regarding the desktop/server argument, that's merely how I used Debian prior to the existence of testing. When testing came along I used that instead on my desktop. My reasoning is simply that when unstable broke it could be broken for a long time. That still happens on occasion, but it doesn't typically make it into testing that way.

As for the '1 week delay' into 'fresh' - occasionally testing does have issues that last a long time; generally in libraries and often moreso on non-x86 architectures. I expect this delay to be longer than one week typically as these more minor issues are caught later by the desktop users.

In this way, developers run unstable, testing is desktop users, fresh is for servers on the cutting edge, and stable is what you stick in a closet and forget about. However, your argument that desktop people don't run HylaFAX servers and AMANDA (for example), has merit.

The only question to me is: can there and should there be something in between 'stable' and 'testing' for server-type loads? Or does 'testing' provide a reasonable enough balance between up-to-date software and the sys admin's work load? Or does 'backports' suffice in that role?

For some of my work, backports has satistied my needs. When I've gone looking for web hosts, though, I've often found that I wanted something supporting newer software releases. It seems that what is done should be tailored to how the distribution is being used. These are just use cases based on my experiences.