Could the maintainers clarify what criteria are used to mark a given source format such as 3.0 (git) as "experimental"? It doesn't seem to be when the format was implemented or merged, or the amount of testing the format has had, since the git format seems as good or better than other non-experimental formats in those regards. I hope it doesn't come down to one member of the dpkg team's personal preference. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature