On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 08:43:19PM +0000, Christopher Baines wrote:
> > Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 12:14:03PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> maybe the process should be the other way round:
> >>> 
> >>> staging -> "staging-frozen" -> master
> >>> no "staging-next"
> >>
> >> I really like this idea
> >
> > It sounds good to me too!
> 
> I've been thinking about this as well [1], although my angle is more
> about making it possible to separate out testing the branch vs building
> substitutes for users.
> 
> 1: https://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-10/msg00401.html

Alright, it sounds like you all have some good ideas. I've deleted the
staging branch, since it has been merged to master. I'll leave it up to
one of you to decide what to do about what is currently "staging-next".