It makes sense that maintainers would happily entertain and expeditiously
fix problems in the unstable version ... presumably that is a major reason
one releases an unstable version in the first place.  (Now we just let the
guinea pigs find the remaining traps . . . )

However, were I using the test version I would expect to often read
something like "thank you for your bug report.  We will get to it as soon as
possible.  Your complaint is the 32nd priority in the level two triage
queue.  It is 39th overall.  We estimate that at current rates of
development your issue will be addressed in 6 to 10 weeks."


> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Blake
> Barnett
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 3:02 PM
> To: 'plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us'
> Subject: RE: Which Linux Distro?
>
>
> If you're running unstable(woody) or testing(sid) you get bleeding edge
> tools.  Both releases are very stable (with some restraint on
> updating like
> mad).  There are very few software packages that are not in their apt
> sources, and the maintainers are very approachable for fixes and requests
> (my experiences anyway.)  I've never had a problem with apt that
> I couldn't
> fix with a few dpkg commands.