https://wiki.debian.org/Backports says to add bullseye-backports to bookworm. Is that correct?

To: debian-backports@lists.debian.org
Subject: https://wiki.debian.org/Backports says to add bullseye-backports to bookworm. Is that correct?
From: Jaime <enopatch@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2023 14:21:11 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] CAAbCkmLqnObdcSKMiH=qrL=pMgArL2rfnMjkhcy8mWy+QUd4bg@mail.gmail.com>

https://wiki.debian.org/Backports says "Configuring your stable
system" / "we will use bookworm as the current codename" but it then
goes on to make 7 references to "bullseye-backports". Is that correct?
(I assume not, as I have just found
https://www.debian.org/News/2023/20230610 which says to remove
"bullseye-backports" and add "bookworm-backports" but I would
appreciate a confirmation from someone who understands these things.)

TIA, J

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: https://wiki.debian.org/Backports says to add bullseye-backports to bookworm. Is that correct?
  - From: Boyuan Yang <byang@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Uploads to bookworm-backports get rejected (Was: libapreq2_2.17-3~bpo12+1_amd64.changes REJECTED)
Next by Date: Re: https://wiki.debian.org/Backports says to add bullseye-backports to bookworm. Is that correct?
Previous by thread: Re: Uploads to bookworm-backports get rejected (Was: libapreq2_2.17-3~bpo12+1_amd64.changes REJECTED)
Next by thread: Re: https://wiki.debian.org/Backports says to add bullseye-backports to bookworm. Is that correct?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread