I'm not sure I follow - how have they been "unstable" ?
may not be the right words to use, but there were a couple of things I think went awry, the main that has given us much grief I suppose is related to if you see this sort of message
Xlib: extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":0.0".
it stopped a lot of scripts we had that used XDialog from running satisfactorily.
We had to change the scripts to run just from console with no nice UI and is still thoroughly confusing some users.
In the course of trying to fix above, there were some postings about updating (I think it was) xcb which we did, but lost vlc as a result of that. Which as far as I understand it we can not get vlc back without wiping and starting over pointing at YouCanToo's repo (if we are also wanting to stick with KDE3.5 (for now) which we do).
What you don't seem to realise is that the repository change has nothing to do with KDE4. It is just co-incidence that 2009 had KDE 3 and 2010 will have KDE 4.
Actually I do realise, I am just trying to suggest that if you want serious users (as well) they will/should want a distro that has very stable platform and that any new development and fundamentally new "version" should be done in a seperate repo. When that other repo has proven to be rock solid and users are ready to make the move they can, but they should not end up with slightly compromised systems (I do not mean in security sense I mean in the functionality they previously enjoyed). i.e. we are living with issues and are being told the solution is to wait for 2010 (which if it is KDE4 may not be an option for us, yet, which is where the KDE4 bits of discussion have been coming in.)
and announced everyone would have to re-install to stay current
a tangent, some means or mechanism built into the distribution that provides such information to end users (who do not frequent the forums) would be nice ?
This is not part of a grand plan. Until January no one knew there was going to be a break. Doubtless if Texstar had known in October what he knows now he might have frozen the repo before working on a KDE 4 release and started afresh then, but he didn't know.
Yes, which is why I'm trying to suggest (yes I know with hindsight) but wouldn't it be a good idea in future (I know with the very limited resources) to keep one repo absolutely stable and give any development a reasonable beta test via another repo?