What happens when Testing/Unstable becomes stable?

I'm looking at getting the 3.2 kernel for my laptop, since it increases battery life quite a bit, from what i understand.So my question is, is Sid stable enough to just run Unstable? I know by its very nature being labelled 'unstable', I should expect breakages. But testing seemed might stable to me, and Crunchbang, whose name suggests unstability is also stable.

snowpine wrote:Many users are uncomfortable with the term "unstable"I see the irony here!

I'm currently running Debian testing and would like to install a package only available in the stable repositories.

Hi,

Chromium Stable is available for F17 as well as F16 and F15, etc... However Unstable is only available in the Fedora repo's up to F15.

This brings two questions forward:

-Why is this, shouldn't it be the other way around? As in Unstable available for F17-F16 and stable stopping at F15 or F16.

-Is it still possible to get Unstable for F16?

Best thing about Debian IMHO is division into unstable/testing/stable branches, any of which are viable as everyday operating systems (depending on the user of course). I would encourage Corenomial to keep this in mind during development.

Just leave your /etc/apt/sources.list alone, and when Wheezy goes Stable, you'll be running CrunchBang Waldorf stable.

Hello , i am using #! for over 4 days, i am perfectly OK with it. The only one problem is that my notebooks fan is still running even when i am doing practically nothing.

Again I'm thinking about ditching Ubuntu for Debian as a base system. Out of experience I thought I'd ask questions before actually doing so :P1. Which branch is best to use? Stable, testing (squeeze?) or unstable (sid?)2.

I've been using testing/unstable for about a month now - chose it over stable for a couple of things. So, in order to avoid pboblems I'm thinking of just not updating anymore until the next iso is released. Is there any problems with this stragety I should be aware of ?