On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 12:45 -0300, Eduardo Grosclaude wrote: > > Thank you for your point, on which I wholly agree, but I was > taking "stability" as "a measure of velocity in change" of a > system's components-- here reflected in a shorter or longer > life cycle for each version. Seems like a bad concept - if something is broken in the initial release you really do want the change that fixes it... > Er... I'm back from Wikipedia, and found (cough) no traces of > "stability" as the proper word for what I meant, but come on, think > Debian stable/unstable, that stuff :S This is probably spelled out somewhere in the 'upstream version' documentation, but security-related fixes are made available as needed and bugfix updates are batched infrequently. Version-level application updates are almost never done. I consider it the 'right' amount of stability for servers where the programs have been feature-complete for years but it is getting on the old side for desktop apps now. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com