Comment 1 for bug 792381

It's a good idea to also cover the traditional tools and link to them in the current articles. Particularly for cases like where the importer currently has difficulties this makes sense and will provide "a way out of trouble". I just filed bug 809925 to track this.

Generally UDD is the future of Ubuntu development. It's not a distant future and it is lived already, so I'm not quite sure what we would fix by renaming the guide. It would require us to rename/shuffle-around/etc. and after some time revert it back again. This would create another problem: When would it be reverted back? When a gremium decides? When nobody objects any more?

Also do I feel it's very hard to write a "general packaging guide" if you are trying to capture the workflows of all kinds of developers. There is and always will be many ways to "do it" and it's fine for some teams to try out something new and use tools that suit them. The down-side of this is obviously that new contributors will always be baffled by the amount of different tools that can get the job done or even are expected to be used in some circumstances. This is why we decided in a lot of conversations about this project that we want to have simple task-based articles that are straight-forward and help them solve a specific problem but point out in knowledge-base articles how other approaches might work, or how more advanced features work.