On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:08:36 -0400, zap wrote in message
<b9df8a9e-ed87-01fb-ce7f-9834039fab6c@???>:

> On 09/17/2017 04:05 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 05:27:19 +0100
> > KatolaZ <katolaz@???> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In many typical Devuan use cases (mission-critical services,
> >> for instance), you absolutely don't want the latest "upgrade" of a
> >> package, because you can't afford any random upgrade to break your
> >> system, even temporarily.
> >
> > Yes. Why is that so hard to understand?
> >
> > There are some cases when it's easiest and perhaps best to trust
> > that the latest update will always work. But in other situations,
> > you prioritize stability, and that's the space Devuan fills.
>
> I haven't replied for a while. but yeah your probably right.  Devuan
> is better as is. I would definitely though that being said, hope to
> make a not pure rolling release, but one with a stability in the
> middle of stable and testing, and then one for unstable and
> experimental...

..one early blunder we did, was fork off Debian Jessie rather than
Debian Wheezy, a lot of good people we could have used here, got
stuck there because they are conservative and slow because they
get paid to prioritize stability.

..we could help bridge that "Debian-Wheezy-to-Devuan-Jessie" gap
with a _minimal_ "Devuan Wheezy 0.x" fork, if that isn't too much
water under the bridge now...

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.