Trackin' stable vs. releases

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Alan DuBoff (aland@softorchestra.com):

> This is partially true, but let's ponder on why that person may want/need to 
> resync during the lifecycle of "stable" on their system.

Security fixes.  Other fixes.  Improvements.  It seems eccentric to use
Debian while ignoring its main system maintenance tool.

> More often than not it seems that a piece of software would need to be
> installed the had a dependancy on a package that was not on hamm,
> wether that be gtk, glibc, or other common library.

Come again?  I don't entirely get what you're saying -- and you seem to
be changing the subject.  But it probably doesn't matter.

> Completely agree, until they finds themselves needing or wanting some 
> software that is not on stable, and depending on how bad they want it, maybe 
> they do as me and may decide to take it to unstable.

And this _is_ changing the subject, as noted previiously.

At this point, I'll snip some stuff that eventually amounts to:  Your
sources.list currently specifies "woody".

You say you don't like testing, but you're _using_ it.   And it seems as
if your ultimate desire is to end up on the stable track (which seems 
a bizarre thing to want, if you're on testing, which makes one wonder
why you don't just put "testing" in place of "woody" in sources.list,
today.  And, given that you enjoy what being on the testing branch gives 
you today, I'm confused about why you wouldn't enjoy more of the
same later.

You say you "don't want to continue with unstable", but you aren't _on_
it.  You've only drawn packages from unstable on occasion, which
probably cleared into testing shortly thereafter, anyway.

I can't even parse semantically the sentence that ends "it won't affect
me".  It's grammatical English, but I can't determine what it means.

So, all of that seems odd, but I figure it must make sense to you.  ;->