stable vs. experimental archive

[Ben Abbott]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 08:22AM, "Jaroslav Hajek" <highegg at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>following the conversation and my proposal
>http://www.nabble.com/stable-branch-release-policy--was-Re%3A-Possible-bug-in-intersect--td23009036.html#a23072785
>I would like to carry on the discussion about setting up a second
>official "experimental" repository to resolve issues with development
>& stability. I see the following options:
>
>1. create a secondary "experimental" repo on Savannah (if this can be done)
>2. create an "experimental" branch in the savannah repo (and maybe
>rename the "default" branch to "stable")
>3. host the "experimental" repo elsewhere (TW's)
>X. forget about the stable & experimental proposal, use a different
>development/maintenance model
>
>could you please share your opinions/votes? if anyone votes for X.,
>please describe your idea.
>
>I think 1. is clearly winner if it can be done. 2 and 3 are
>compromises. My vote is 2 if 1 is not possible.
>
>cheers

Avoding a divergence of repo's looks like the biggest potential problem.

Regarding (1) and (2), would all changesets be applied to the experimental and later (after thorough testing) be applied to the stable repo? ... Which would essentially ensure that the two repo's do not diverge, of do you have something else in mind?

Ben