Richard Laager <rlaa...@wiktel.com> writes: > If someone is working with both unstable and experimental, then they > must use two branches to differentiate them. DEP-14 says to do so with > debian/experimental for experimental. So far, so good. For unstable, > DEP-14 says to use debian/sid or debian/unstable. Why not A) pick *one* > of those, and B) always use it, never using debian/master?
My normal use of experimental does not involve maintaining unstable and experimental branches simultaneously. I essentially never do that; instead, I maintain one development branch, which I upload to either experimental or to unstable based on things like where we are in the release cycle or whether I need to stage some change. If I'm uploading to experimental, I don't fix bugs in unstable until the experimental release is ready for upload to unstable. (The exception is if we're in the middle of a release and I need to fix something that will go into the next release, but at that point I just use debian/<codename> for the unstable upload that will propagate to that release.) I know some people do more of a two-branch setup, but I think my approach is reasonably common for a lot of packages. In that case, both debian/sid and debian/unstable are, well, wrong if the latest version was uploaded to experimental. debian/master correctly captures the semantics of what I'm doing: it's the master development branch, which is going into either unstable or experimental as appropriate. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
