On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 15:50 +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > Le samedi 12 janvier 2013 15:21:24, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > > > I recommend instead of redefining logic of unstable, branch off new > > suites with new logic. > > > > ...and then back to that issue of "maintainers should concentrate on the > > release" again: I do sincerely worry that additional suites _will_ > > affect how many of us developers will concentrate on getting the release > > out. > > It would also probably affect how many users would test unstable which would > undermine the efficiency of the transition from unstable to testing since > bugs > in unstable are more likely to not be noticed.
I don't see the problem here. Unstable stay unstable and unfrozen, or stable+2 as Thomas Goirand wrote. The packages going into testing are from unstable before the freeze (stable+2) and from the old unstable (stable+1) after the freeze. Or to say it differently: experimental being really for new stuff unstable unfrozen always: - stable+1 if no freeze - stable+2 if in freeze - and stable+1=unstable at the freeze time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1358007101.4363.123.ca...@amd64.my.own.domain
