I realize this isn't the best place to post this, but renaming 'testing' doesn't seem like the right thing to me. I've run 'unstable' on my PC and have run 'testing' on my server, and neither was really suitable for my application.
You could argue that I'm doing it wrong, which is fine, but had I my druthers I'd prefer to run 'testing' on my PC, and 'rolling' (allow me to call it Debian 'fresh' to reduce ambiguity) on my server. While one could argue that 'stable' is for servers - and while it mostly does satisfy this need - that isn't always the case. Sometimes, depending on how the server is used, 'stable' is simply too out of date.
So what is 'fresh' if not 'testing'? In my mind it's not necessary for it to be a fully vetted 'testing'. One would assume that 'testing' is the dominant platform (desktop users), and just as things automatically roll into 'testing', they would roll from 'testing' into 'fresh'. One week gestation should be sufficient time. This would eliminate most of the silly errors that sometimes make it into 'testing' while still providing a relatively up-to-date server-worthy distro.
This doesn't answer any of the concerns about freezing a new 'stable', but it does fit in with the common software idiom of fixing problems by adding another layer of abstraction...