1 Topic by ralessi

  • ralessi
  • Guest

Topic: Playing Daredevils

Now that I have successfully completed the migration to v0.3, I must say that I am tempted to remain in the so-called `unstable` branch.  On another side, stability is very important to me. My question would be: does `unstable` break often? And if so, how often and how badly?  I am under the impression that `unstable` is actually pretty stable and quite harmless.

2 Reply by koszko

  • koszko
  • Guest

Re: Playing Daredevils

I do get that impression, too. However, it might get worse when big changes are being worked on. Think this way: when massive changes for a new version are finished being worked on, devs move to testing that everything works together and making minor fixes. That was the case with v0.3 lately. Those "minor fixes" as I called them take some time, throughout which Testing seems stable. However, once devs start working on other big changes (java removal for v0.4?), testing shall get all the updates and only then people using it will start experiencing problems. Also, testing is not "bleeding-edge" - it has (mostly) the same versions of programs as stable. Only revisions go up there, so if one wants to, say, use the newest, just-released Erlang VM, switching to testing will not help smile

3 Reply by ralessi

  • ralessi
  • Guest

Re: Playing Daredevils

Thank you for sharing this.  My intention was essentially  to help by reporting bugs or suggestions for improvements rather than to get the latest versions of packages.  (As far as I am concerned, I can't see specific use cases in which I am particularly interested in having the latest versions of packages, except for texlive and related packages.) It would therefore be more prudent to buy a second disc and use it for this type of test.

4 Reply by zapper

  • zapper
  • zapper
  • Hyper Cyber
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2017-10-18
  • Posts: 1,075

Re: Playing Daredevils

ralessi wrote:

Thank you for sharing this.  My intention was essentially  to help by reporting bugs or suggestions for improvements rather than to get the latest versions of packages.  (As far as I am concerned, I can't see specific use cases in which I am particularly interested in having the latest versions of packages, except for texlive and related packages.) It would therefore be more prudent to buy a second disc and use it for this type of test.

I don't recommend this though,  especially once they begin 0.4's testing.

Sound will inevitably die no doubt in that version temporarily due to migrating to sndio.

Also java removal, etc...

PS, VMS are a safer way to test this stuff.  yikes

HyperbolaBSD: The Future of Secure Libre Lightweight Operating Systems!

5 Reply by koszko

  • koszko
  • Guest

Re: Playing Daredevils

zapper wrote:

PS, VMS are a safer way to test this stuff.  yikes

Yeah, they sure are very safe. Personally, tho, I prefer chroot for this kind of stuff. Saves me quite a bit of hassle (especially when it comes to file copying, etc.) tongue Even if some things (e.g. init-related stuff) cannot be tested this way...

6 Reply by ralessi

  • ralessi
  • Guest

Re: Playing Daredevils

Thank you.  I will try both chrooting and VMS.  However, I was thinking of using a second disk just because this method allows to boot naturally, without having to do anything, and then work and see what happens. Chrooting or VMS seemed to me more suitable for spot tests.

7 Reply by zapper

  • zapper
  • zapper
  • Hyper Cyber
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2017-10-18
  • Posts: 1,075

Re: Playing Daredevils

ralessi wrote:

Thank you.  I will try both chrooting and VMS.  However, I was thinking of using a second disk just because this method allows to boot naturally, without having to do anything, and then work and see what happens. Chrooting or VMS seemed to me more suitable for spot tests.

Sounds like a good idea. smile

HyperbolaBSD: The Future of Secure Libre Lightweight Operating Systems!