On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Scott (2013.03.01_06:55:18_+0200)
>> > I fully agree, and this is not even limited to the kernel. There are
>> > other kinds of "major transitions" like switching to a new X.org
>> > server, preparing a new major Qt or GNOME release, new
Hi Scott (2013.03.01_06:55:18_+0200)
> > I fully agree, and this is not even limited to the kernel. There are
> > other kinds of "major transitions" like switching to a new X.org
> > server, preparing a new major Qt or GNOME release, new eglibc, etc. Or
> > we want to do a complex transition such a
William Grant wrote:
>On 01/03/13 15:55, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> For people or teams that are largely or entirely !canonical, this
>only works
>> if all you care about is x86 (i386/amd64). Anything for armhf (or
>powerpc)
>> would have to land untested since the PPAs that are available for
>
David Henningsson wrote:
>On 03/01/2013 05:55 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Friday, March 01, 2013 05:50:35 AM Martin Pitt wrote:
>>> For those we'll need temporary staging areas which are not put into
>>> the RR yet until they get a sufficient amount of testing; these
>could
>>> be "topic PPA
On 01/03/13 15:55, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> For people or teams that are largely or entirely !canonical, this only works
> if all you care about is x86 (i386/amd64). Anything for armhf (or powerpc)
> would have to land untested since the PPAs that are available for !canonical
> don't build thes
On 02/28/2013 09:36 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, March 01, 2013 06:16:18 AM Martin Pitt wrote:
>>
>> +1 on that from me as well, unless it turns out in discussions that we
>> are doing 13.04 after all, and only drop 13.10.
>
> Now would be a good time to be discussing this change for af
On 02/28/2013 10:06 PM, Robbie Williamson wrote:
On 02/28/2013 02:49 PM, David Henningsson wrote:
On 02/28/2013 05:09 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
* Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
Big +1. I'm particularly looking forward to integrating our automatic
package tests
On 03/01/2013 05:55 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, March 01, 2013 05:50:35 AM Martin Pitt wrote:
For those we'll need temporary staging areas which are not put into
the RR yet until they get a sufficient amount of testing; these could
be "topic PPAs" which interested people would enable a
On 02/28/2013 11:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, March 01, 2013 04:43:09 PM William Grant wrote:
>> On 01/03/13 15:46, Martin Pitt wrote:> Loïc Minier [2013-02-28 18:18 +0100]:
I would think we should go over these questions at UDS next week;
Steve Langasek has kindly prepared
On Friday, March 01, 2013 04:43:09 PM William Grant wrote:
> On 01/03/13 15:46, Martin Pitt wrote:> Loïc Minier [2013-02-28 18:18 +0100]:
> >> I would think we should go over these questions at UDS next week;
> >> Steve Langasek has kindly prepared a blueprint from some discussion we
> >> had on th
On 01/03/13 15:46, Martin Pitt wrote:> Loïc Minier [2013-02-28 18:18 +0100]:
>> I would think we should go over these questions at UDS next week;
>> Steve Langasek has kindly prepared a blueprint from some discussion we
>> had on this:
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/release-r-mont
On Friday, March 01, 2013 12:36:43 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, March 01, 2013 06:16:18 AM Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Scott Kitterman [2013-02-28 18:24 -0500]:
> > > Perhaps it would make sense to extend 12.10 support by 6 months to give
> > > 12.10 users a decent interval to upgrade.
> >
>
On Friday, March 01, 2013 06:16:18 AM Martin Pitt wrote:
> Scott Kitterman [2013-02-28 18:24 -0500]:
> > Perhaps it would make sense to extend 12.10 support by 6 months to give
> > 12.10 users a decent interval to upgrade.
>
> +1 on that from me as well, unless it turns out in discussions that we
Michael Hall [2013-02-28 22:04 -0500]:
> This is also something that concerns me in our efforts to make Ubuntu
> a target platform for app developers. We need to make some commitment
> to supporting platform APIs during these rolling releases between LTS
> so developers know what they can expect.
Scott Kitterman [2013-02-28 23:55 -0500]:
> For people or teams that are largely or entirely !canonical, this only works
> if all you care about is x86 (i386/amd64). Anything for armhf (or powerpc)
> would have to land untested since the PPAs that are available for !canonical
> don't build thes
Scott Kitterman [2013-02-28 18:24 -0500]:
> Perhaps it would make sense to extend 12.10 support by 6 months to give 12.10
> users a decent interval to upgrade.
+1 on that from me as well, unless it turns out in discussions that we
are doing 13.04 after all, and only drop 13.10.
Martin
--
Martin
On 02/28/2013 11:03 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Micah Gersten [2013-02-28 13:33 -0600]:
>> Yes, but our britney doesn't delay migration to allow for testing of the
>> built packages or block based on RC bugs filed.
> Not on RC bugs, but we can still block them manually. Pinging any
> release team memb
Micah Gersten [2013-02-28 13:33 -0600]:
> Yes, but our britney doesn't delay migration to allow for testing of the
> built packages or block based on RC bugs filed.
Not on RC bugs, but we can still block them manually. Pinging any
release team member about that works right now.
What appears to be
On Friday, March 01, 2013 05:50:35 AM Martin Pitt wrote:
> David Henningsson [2013-02-28 21:49 +0100]:
> > But still, a word of caution here. Every piece of code even remotely
> > related to the hardware, not only the Linux kernel but also most of
> > the plumbing layer, is quite difficult (or even
Loïc Minier [2013-02-28 18:27 +0100]:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > So if the "last monthly" is supposed to actually be a kind of a
> > release, instead of just a blessed daily installation image, this
> > would mean that there would be a new series each month?
>
> New series are
David Henningsson [2013-02-28 21:49 +0100]:
> But still, a word of caution here. Every piece of code even remotely
> related to the hardware, not only the Linux kernel but also most of
> the plumbing layer, is quite difficult (or even impossible) to
> automate testing for. Even if we would set up r
Loïc Minier [2013-02-28 18:18 +0100]:
> Trying to think in the spirit of rolling, let's try to keep things as
> releasable as possible every day! :-)
Indeed, I thought that was the whole point why we are doing a RR now.
> If we really have a bad issue
> the day we intend to take a snapshot, the
Ted Gould [2013-02-28 16:52 -0600]:
> While I realize that the mechanism is yet undecided, but it is important
> that if we are doing release, and expect people to use them, that we do
> upgrade testing between those. This isn't really more work than having
> a 6 monthly release, but we shouldn't
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:04:19 PM Michael Hall wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/28/2013 04:55 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> > That's a worst-case scenario for Ubuntu as a platform. The type of
> > users most likely to install applications, not doing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/28/2013 06:01 PM, Ted Gould wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 17:09 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
>>> More clearly, I think we should: * Stop making interim
>>> releases.
>>
>> This entails also dropping freezes for the non-LTS cycles, or
>> would w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/28/2013 04:55 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> That's a worst-case scenario for Ubuntu as a platform. The type of
> users most likely to install applications, not doing so, because
> they're using an Ubuntu version that changes too often for
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:39:58AM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> On Do, 2013-02-28 at 20:14 +, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> > So, I'm all in favor of having two-yearly releases. But for the same
> > reasons as six-monthly releases are bad, monthly snapshots and/or a
> > rolling release
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:05:35PM -0800, Alex Chiang wrote:
> > The monthly snapshots would be for users who want the fresh
> > software, but don't want to manage the daily grind of updating
> > to ensure that their system is secure. The way I think of it is
> > that we "support" 2 cadences for up
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > What about a rolling static base instead? Do a unionfs (or similar) on
> top
> > of it. Deliver an encompassing image from month to month. Turn off apt
> as
> > a mechanism to deliver updat
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> What about a rolling static base instead? Do a unionfs (or similar) on top
> of it. Deliver an encompassing image from month to month. Turn off apt as
> a mechanism to deliver updates. But allow it to be turned back on. Even
> if you don't insta
On Feb 28, 2013, at 05:01 PM, Ted Gould wrote:
>I hope that we will. My biggest worry with the rolling release
>methodology is that there is no deadlines for people to work towards
>except the LTS deadlines. This will then encourage more polishing and
>refining, with a rush to an even bigger dea
Removed from sponsors queue (WIP/unsubbed) due to issues needing resolved:
*
https://code.launchpad.net/~danilo/ubuntu/raring/command-not-found/python2-package/+merge/149494
*
https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/piuparts/0.49ubuntu1/+merge/149918
*
https://code.launchpad.net/~israeld
On 2/28/13 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
About the term "Interim Releases":
There's no such thing in Ubuntu. We have regular releases and LTS releases
and until some decision has been made, I think those are the appropriate
terms. If this is actually a discussion, I think people should avoi
hi,
On Do, 2013-02-28 at 20:14 +, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> So, I'm all in favor of having two-yearly releases. But for the same
> reasons as six-monthly releases are bad, monthly snapshots and/or a
> rolling release would be much worse -- unless we are careful to
> communicate that they ar
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:24:59PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The proposal is silent on the upgrade path for 12.10 users? Presumably 12.10
> -> 14.04 LTS upgrades will be supported. Unfortunately, support for 12.10
> runs out at just about the same time 14.04 is supposed to be release.
>
On 28 February 2013 23:15, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013, Alex Chiang wrote:
>> > If you want to avoid the daily grind, press the close button when
>> > update-manager fires. Or set the 'check for updates' frequency to
The proposal is silent on the upgrade path for 12.10 users? Presumably 12.10
-> 14.04 LTS upgrades will be supported. Unfortunately, support for 12.10
runs out at just about the same time 14.04 is supposed to be release.
Perhaps it would make sense to extend 12.10 support by 6 months to give 1
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013, Alex Chiang wrote:
> > If you want to avoid the daily grind, press the close button when
> > update-manager fires. Or set the 'check for updates' frequency to
> > monthly. I think the intended audience for monthly images
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013, Alex Chiang wrote:
> If you want to avoid the daily grind, press the close button when
> update-manager fires. Or set the 'check for updates' frequency to
> monthly. I think the intended audience for monthly images could
> handle that workflow.
>
> If you want to avoid the ex
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 17:09 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > More clearly, I think we should:
> > * Stop making interim releases.
>
> This entails also dropping freezes for the non-LTS cycles, or would we
> still have freeze cycles during the monthly cadence?
I hope that we will. My biggest worr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/02/13 19:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, with my SRU hat I'm in complete agreement here. Unverified
> SRUs for interim releases every time we do an SRU to an LTS are a
> constant source of frustration for me, and make it starkly clear
> that te
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:26:51 AM Rick Spencer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
> > > I'm not entirely opposed to the idea that the Debian development model
> > > of 2-year "stable" releases wit
On 22/02/13 04:24, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> I've been absolutely flooded with informal reports over a period of
> several months now of 12.10 being still broken with regards to
> proprietary drivers.
>
> Reports like this are typical, especially after the influx of steam users:
> "Installed ubuntu +
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 11:59 -0500, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On 13-02-28 11:49 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > I would expect users to upgrade to the latest packages of the RR each
> > time update-notifier pops up, regardless of which medium they used to
> > install. After a month this needs to happen
On 2013-02-28 16:31, Rick Spencer wrote:
> More clearly, I think we should:
> * Stop making interim releases.
> * Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
I like the idea, since I'm convinced it will free resources. Just want
to say one thing:
Please let us use a significant
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 01:38:28 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 04:16:57PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> I do think that while 75% of the archive is imported unmodified from
> >> Debian, the vast majority of these packages are in the long tail that
> >> both a) don't
Hi,
I am overall +1 for a rolling release for multiple reasons,
mostly for the clarity it gives...
- to downstreams and ISVs (target the LTS for your
products, use 'daily' for your next-gen stuff)
- to folks on the other side of the chasm we're trying to
targe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rick Spencer wrote on 28/02/13 20:41:
> ...
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas
>
> ...
>> So, I'm all in favor of having two-yearly releases. But for the
>> same reasons as six-monthly releases are bad, monthly snapshots
>> a
On 02/28/2013 12:49 PM, David Henningsson wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 05:09 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
>>> * Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
>>
>> Big +1. I'm particularly looking forward to integrating our automatic
>> package tests with britney.
>
> The QA work done in -pr
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 04:16:57PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I do think that while 75% of the archive is imported unmodified from
>> Debian, the vast majority of these packages are in the long tail that
>> both a) don't individually have many users in Ubuntu, and b) don't have
>> anyone payi
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 09:29:31 PM Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> On 28 February 2013 20:57, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 06:38:41 PM Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> >> On 28 February 2013 17:16, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:07:02 PM Je
On 28 February 2013 20:57, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 06:38:41 PM Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> On 28 February 2013 17:16, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:07:02 PM Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> >> On 28 February 2013 16:31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:59:19 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:11:27PM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > On 28 February 2013 14:33, Micah Gersten wrote:
> > > Yes, but our britney doesn't delay migration to allow for testing of the
> > > built packages or block based on
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Paul Sladen wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> On 02/28/2013 01:53 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
>> > I suspect there's a good chance that if we all work on the technical
>> > details together as a "hypothetical reality",
>> isn't that what next
On 02/28/2013 02:49 PM, David Henningsson wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 05:09 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
>>> * Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
>>
>> Big +1. I'm particularly looking forward to integrating our automatic
>> package tests with britney.
>
> The QA work done in -p
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 03:11:27 PM Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 28 February 2013 14:33, Micah Gersten wrote:
> > Yes, but our britney doesn't delay migration to allow for testing of the
> > built packages or block based on RC bugs filed. I see us getting to the
> > point at some time in the f
On 28 February 2013 15:58, Allison Randal wrote:
> Depends on what actually gets discussed next week. A single hour-long
> session on cadence isn't going to help much. A whole bunch of sessions
> exploring every aspect of the Ubuntu development model that would be
> impacted by a "hypothetical" ch
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 02:04:31 PM Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 01:53 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On 02/28/2013 11:26 AM, Rick Spencer wrote:
> >
> > I suspect there's a good chance that if we all work on the technical
> > details together as a "hypothetical reality", we can a
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:26:51 AM Rick Spencer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On 02/28/2013 07:31 AM, Rick Spencer wrote:
> > > To succeed at this we will need both velocity and agility. Therefore, I
> > > am starting a discussion about dropping non-L
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:11:27PM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 28 February 2013 14:33, Micah Gersten wrote:
> > Yes, but our britney doesn't delay migration to allow for testing of the
> > built packages or block based on RC bugs filed. I see us getting to the
> > point at some time in the fu
On 02/28/2013 12:20 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>
> Heh, I suppose not, but the blueprint Rick and others referenced[1] is
> in place and Loic mentioned in this thread that we should discuss this
> blueprint next week. :)
Depends on what actually gets discussed next week. A single hour-long
sessi
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 06:38:41 PM Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> On 28 February 2013 17:16, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:07:02 PM Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> >> On 28 February 2013 16:31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> > This may be true for Canonical and the Ubuntu des
On 02/28/2013 05:09 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
* Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
Big +1. I'm particularly looking forward to integrating our automatic
package tests with britney.
The QA work done in -proposed has increased the productivity for the
rest of us, no
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 06:17:17 PM Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> On 28 February 2013 17:05, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 07:31:49 AM Rick Spencer wrote:
> >> Daily Quality means that developers can ensure their components are
> >> stable
> >> and useful before they
On 02/28/2013 03:13 PM, Paul Sladen wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> On 02/28/2013 01:53 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
>>> I suspect there's a good chance that if we all work on the technical
>>> details together as a "hypothetical reality",
>> isn't that what next week is for?
About the term "Interim Releases":
There's no such thing in Ubuntu. We have regular releases and LTS releases
and until some decision has been made, I think those are the appropriate
terms. If this is actually a discussion, I think people should avoid
referring to our current releases as inte
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 06:52:23 PM Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Has there been any technical discussion about how this would work? If so,
> > can we have a pointer to it?
>
> Adam and Colin were kind enough to bounce some ideas some days ago to
> p
Hi mpt,
A lot of points in here. Some follow up thoughts ...
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The six-monthly Ubuntu release cycle is exciting for Ubuntu fans, KDE
> fans, and (lesserly) Gnome fans ... and awful f
Hey,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:15:28PM -0600, Micah Gersten wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 02:11 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> […]
> > Maybe this will also allow the Kubuntu developers to package the
> > KDE beta updates without needing to worry about those getting picked
> > up in the next (monthly?) updat
On 02/28/2013 02:13 PM, Paul Sladen wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> On 02/28/2013 01:53 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
>>> I suspect there's a good chance that if we all work on the technical
>>> details together as a "hypothetical reality",
>> isn't that what next week is for?
On 02/28/2013 02:11 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 28 February 2013 14:33, Micah Gersten wrote:
>> Yes, but our britney doesn't delay migration to allow for testing of the
>> built packages or block based on RC bugs filed. I see us getting to the
>> point at some time in the future of being more st
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The six-monthly Ubuntu release cycle is exciting for Ubuntu fans, KDE
fans, and (lesserly) Gnome fans ... and awful for pretty much everyone
else.
It's awful for first-time users trying to choose a version, for ISVs,
for OEMs and ODMs, for people who
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 01:53 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> > I suspect there's a good chance that if we all work on the technical
> > details together as a "hypothetical reality",
> isn't that what next week is for?
I guess we don't know(tm) as:
http://summit
On 28 February 2013 14:33, Micah Gersten wrote:
> Yes, but our britney doesn't delay migration to allow for testing of the
> built packages or block based on RC bugs filed. I see us getting to the
> point at some time in the future of being more stable than testing in a
> rolling release, but I d
On 02/28/2013 01:53 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 11:26 AM, Rick Spencer wrote:
>
> I suspect there's a good chance that if we all work on the technical
> details together as a "hypothetical reality", we can achieve a version
> that is a truly compelling replacement for the 6-month cad
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:25:16AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 04:35:14 PM Aleix Pol wrote:
> > > If Kubuntu wants to strength links with KDE, a good start would be to
> > > actually trust KDE maintain
Hi Scott,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:23:14PM -0500, Scott Howard wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
> wrote:
> > But just like debian we know have britney, together with many
> > automatic adt tests which we run on all reverse dependencies in
> > jenkins. Uploading beta ve
On 02/28/2013 11:26 AM, Rick Spencer wrote:
>
> The daily quality parts are well documented in blueprints from the last
> several UDSs and we are running them. For handling monthly releases,
> there is a proposal on how to do that:
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/release-r-monthly-
On 02/28/2013 01:02 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:26:08PM +, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:53:12AM -0800, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>>>I'm excited about this announcement!
>
>> I remember when Canonical did discussions in Ubuntu not just an
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:25:16AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 04:35:14 PM Aleix Pol wrote:
> > If Kubuntu wants to strength links with KDE, a good start would be to
> > actually trust KDE maintainers on which are stable versions.
>
> What does this mean? Since
On 02/28/2013 09:52 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:59:36AM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> Thanks Rick. I applaud this proposal.
>>
>> This definitely helps to reaffirm the decision that we made with Mythbuntu
>> to move to LTS only for our releases. We have had an in
On 02/28/2013 12:17 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> On 28 February 2013 17:05, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 07:31:49 AM Rick Spencer wrote:
>>> Daily Quality means that developers can ensure their components are stable
>>> and useful before they upload, and our processes
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 07:31 AM, Rick Spencer wrote:
> >
> > To succeed at this we will need both velocity and agility. Therefore, I
> > am starting a discussion about dropping non-LTS releases and move to a
> > rolling release plus LTS releases ri
On 02/28/2013 01:02 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Of course, there are some elements of this that are entirely for
> Canonical to decide. For instance, it's Canonical's decision whether
> or not it's going to fund security support for 6-monthly releases. As
> ScottK mentions up-thread, it's doubtful
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
wrote:
> But just like debian we know have britney, together with many
> automatic adt tests which we run on all reverse dependencies in
> jenkins. Uploading beta version of software into sid has never been
> welcomed and by default it gets release
On 02/28/2013 07:31 AM, Rick Spencer wrote:
>
> To succeed at this we will need both velocity and agility. Therefore, I
> am starting a discussion about dropping non-LTS releases and move to a
> rolling release plus LTS releases right now.
Hi Rick,
At the moment, this proposal sounds mostly like
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:17:17PM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
[emphasis mine]
> But just like debian we know have britney, together with many
> automatic adt tests which we run on all reverse dependencies in
> jenkins. Uploading beta version of software into sid has never been
> welcomed and by
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:26:08PM +, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:53:12AM -0800, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >I'm excited about this announcement!
> I remember when Canonical did discussions in Ubuntu not just announcements
> to it.
The subject of this thread is
On 28 February 2013 17:16, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:07:02 PM Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> On 28 February 2013 16:31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > This may be true for Canonical and the Ubuntu desktop, but I strongly
>> > believe it's not the case for Kubuntu. For me, a
On 02/28/2013 10:49 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Marc Deslauriers [2013-02-28 11:29 -0500]:
>> We will also be pushing urgent security updates to monthly snapshot users.
>
> So if the "last monthly" is supposed to actually be a kind of a
> release, instead of just a blessed daily installation image, t
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:53:12AM -0800, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>I'm excited about this announcement!
I remember when Canonical did discussions in Ubuntu not just announcements to
it.
Jonathan
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at
On 02/28/2013 10:23 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 05:09:26 PM Martin Pitt wrote:
>>> * Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support
>>>
>>> only until the next snapshot
>>
>> This is the main point where I have doubts and questions:
>>
>> * Wh
On 28 February 2013 17:05, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 07:31:49 AM Rick Spencer wrote:
>> Daily Quality means that developers can ensure their components are stable
>> and useful before they upload, and our processes protect us from most
>> mistakes these days. The resu
On 02/28/2013 10:53 AM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On 13-02-28 11:32 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:29:45 AM Marc Deslauriers wrote:
>>> On 13-02-28 11:23 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 05:09:26 PM Martin Pitt wrote:
>> * Take a m
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:44:47AM -0500, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> > == For Core/MOTU Developers ==
> > For the people who are actually making Ubuntu (the people on this thread
> > I hope) there are some clear wins as well.
> > 1. Only 2 releases to support, the LTS and the rolling releases. That
On 28/02/13 15:31, Rick Spencer wrote:
= tl;dr =
Ubuntu has an amazing opportunity in the next 7-8 months to deliver a
Phone OS that will be widely adopted by users and industry while also
putting into place the foundation for a truly converged OS.
To succeed at this we will need both velocit
This is awesome news!
When I first proposed it 18-months ago, I was convinced it was the right
thing to improve Ubuntu's quality and the pace of development at the same
time.
I'm excited about this announcement!
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you go
As one of the user base I hope I can reply here.
I use kubuntu dev version so I can always be up to date with the latest and
greatest. Especially the latest version of kde. You guys (kubuntu devs)
rock and I always look forward to the next update. I do various bug reports
when I can but I don't kn
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Has there been any technical discussion about how this would work? If so,
> can
> we have a pointer to it?
Adam and Colin were kind enough to bounce some ideas some days ago to
prepare:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/release-r-monthl
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:59:36AM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> Thanks Rick. I applaud this proposal.
>
> This definitely helps to reaffirm the decision that we made with Mythbuntu
> to move to LTS only for our releases. We have had an incredibly positive
> response within our sub-community
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
