>>>>> "Marcus" == Marcus Denker <denker at iam.unibe.ch> writes:

Marcus> It makes no sense to treat the unstable update stream as a
Marcus> stable update stream.  Not.

As I understood it, the unstable update stream was a stream where
errors may slip in because more people can put things into it but can
be corrected by further updates easily as several people have write
access to it (as is Debian unstable). I didn't understand from
previous threads that it was a stream where things may change back in
time, but I believe you if you say that I have overlooked them.

Let's face the obvious consequence of this: it means that even
aventurous people should not use the unstable update stream for a
basis of their work, as they will have to reload their own workset in
it every time it is desynched -- if only they notice it. Which means
that the unstable version will not receive much testing with real
applications being developed or deployed, which isn't good in my
opinion as the probability that bugs slip in and don't get noticed
until very late (if they do) are very high -- the work to stabilize
the final product will be much more important and the result will
probably be of a lower quality than a constantly tested unstable branch.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam at rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam