Simon McVittie writes: > On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 at 20:40:43 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> My normal use of experimental does not involve maintaining unstable and >> experimental branches simultaneously. > ... >> I know some people do more of a two-branch setup > > One common reason to need to use experimental more actively is if your > upstream has a relatively long-running "latest feature development" > branch that is explicitly not suitable to be in a stable release, such > as dbus 1.odd.z, GNOME 3.odd.z, and Linux/Xorg/Mesa release candidates.
In such cases it might be even more appropriate to have branches like "debian/1.odd" if they better represent the actual history, in particular if the "debian/1.odd+2" is not a descendant of "debian/1.odd", but an independent branch. (One can otherwise force the new branch to be a descendant by "fake" merges, but that is not a good idea for various reasons: it creates an incorrect history and confuses tools that now think commits were applies when they really were not.) Ansgar
