Re: [cut-team] Time to merge back ubuntu improvements!

[Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>]

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.