Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Le 07/11/2011 02:25, Jeremy Bicha a écrit : Another factor is that I believe Debian will be freezing in June which should mean that GNOME 3.4 will get in Wheezy. I think we should come up with a list of what apps we don't want the 3.4 versions and why. Perhaps the pad is a good place for that. I understand that packaging all the apps in each GNOME milestone takes valuable time but as I've already said, personally I'd like to see as much of 3.4 as possible in Precise. Jeremy Hey Jeremy, Being on the same version than Debian could be nice in theory, in practice they will probably not start on it before we ship (see where they are for 3.2 at the moment for example), I would argue that we would be closer from Debian if we stay on 3.2 this cycle so we could work on the same versions. You could also argue that having the same version than Debian in a LTS would mean sharing stable work but in practice Debian do very little bug fixing work on their stable series (i.e they wouldn't update to a new minor GNOME serie but rather handle security issues and a few important bugs). We should try to document what we update and not though, that's a good idea, but we had most people in agreement at UDS that we should default to be conservative and use the free time to fix bugs rather than playing catching on unstable versions and I think we should stick to that. (looking to the launchpad bugs opened since Oneiric or the SRU we did gives an idea of the number of bugs GNOME gets in their stable versions, we are aiming to better than that for next cycle). Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Le 07/11/2011 02:25, Jeremy Bicha a écrit : Another factor is that I believe Debian will be freezing in June which should mean that GNOME 3.4 will get in Wheezy. I think we should come up with a list of what apps we don't want the 3.4 versions and why. Perhaps the pad is a good place for that. I understand that packaging all the apps in each GNOME milestone takes valuable time but as I've already said, personally I'd like to see as much of 3.4 as possible in Precise. Jeremy Hey Jeremy, Being on the same version than Debian could be nice in theory, in practice they will probably not start on it before we ship (see where they are for 3.2 at the moment for example), I would argue that we would be closer from Debian if we stay on 3.2 this cycle so we could work on the same versions. You could also argue that having the same version than Debian in a LTS would mean sharing stable work but in practice Debian do very little bug fixing work on their stable series (i.e they wouldn't update to a new minor GNOME serie but rather handle security issues and a few important bugs). We should try to document what we update and not though, that's a good idea, but we had most people in agreement at UDS that we should default to be conservative and use the free time to fix bugs rather than playing catching on unstable versions and I think we should stick to that. (looking to the launchpad bugs opened since Oneiric or the SRU we did gives an idea of the number of bugs GNOME gets in their stable versions, we are aiming to better than that for next cycle). Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Another factor is that I believe Debian will be freezing in June which should mean that GNOME 3.4 will get in Wheezy. I think we should come up with a list of what apps we don't want the 3.4 versions and why. Perhaps the pad is a good place for that. I understand that packaging all the apps in each GNOME milestone takes valuable time but as I've already said, personally I'd like to see as much of 3.4 as possible in Precise. Jeremy -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Le samedi 15 octobre 2011 à 14:46 -0400, Jeremy Bicha a écrit : > 3.4.1. For instance, I think we likely want g-c-c 3.4. And if we > delegate 3.3 to a PPA for "safe testing", then we won't get as many > testers as having 3.3 in the main archives. Right, if we decide that we want to update a component we should land it early in the real distro and not in a ppa only. One thing you didn't consider there is resources. Look at Oneirc, we worked hard but we missed bits from GNOME 3.2 (new gdm, gnome-sushi landed late and wouldn't have landed without you, we didn't get the new webkit or epiphany-browser, etc). We can't say we did a great job to it. The issue is that having to deal with updating 60 packages every 3 weeks then dealing with the bugs from the unstable versions is enough work to keep the team busy full time or almost during the cycle. So yes, GNOME 3.4 would be as stable as 3.2 we have today. But how stable will we get GNOME 3.2 if we focus our team efforts fixing bugs during this months rather than playing catchup on packaging unstable versions? We did that during the natty cycle and we did fix a lot of bugs we didn't have time to look during normal cycle. We need to look a performances as well and to nail the integration issues from GNOME3 we still have and we don't have really the resources to do that polish as well as dealing with the work coming from rolling unstable updates Cheers, Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Le samedi 15 octobre 2011 à 03:10 -0400, Jeremy Bicha a écrit : > stable or high quality, or that 3.4 will be exceptionally buggy. My > blind guess is that 3.4 will generally have less bugs than 3.2 as 3.2 > was the first release to build upon the GNOME 3 transition. Well depends at what components you look at, there is still ongoing refactoring and rewrites, some components will be stabler, some other could be not be as stable. One of the transitions I listed before was udisk to udisk2 which is a rewrite. How can we ship a total rewrite (with the corresponding changes to gvfs, gnome-disk-utility, etc) in a lts without having feedback from stable users. How do we know it will not screw lvm setups, ntfs access, or whatever corporate usecase that GNOME unstable series don't get testing on (corporate tend to run stable versions). What if evolution switches to webkit next cycle and it doesn't get working great, what is the gnome-keyring,seahorse refactoring has issues? > There's a vocal segment of the open source community who believe > Canonical is forcing Unity on them and doing a terrible job at making > GNOME available. Regardless of the (in)accuracy of that belief, > deciding to stick with GNOME 3.2 will be a PR hit and we need to have > a very easy-to-understand reason for that decision if it's necessary. > I don't think GNOME developers would be very happy with the decision > either and it's good to keep upstream as happy as possible :-) Well I'm sure people from RedHat and Suse will understand, those are both distributions which have corporate users and tend to be conservative on versions when they roll those. Look also at what OpenSuse is doing with their 9 month cycles, they basically ship every second GNOME version... > in the Oneiric cycle). But it broke the normal Ubuntu desktop in quite > a few unavoidable ways. Right, as Michael pointed it though it was rather a lot of changes, I don't think stayed behind on GNOME 3.4 will have that impact. For one thing we will want to be conservative for importants infrastructure bits, not everything, it's likely that the clutter stack and non default installation packages will be updated. We will likely update vinagre (which you mentioned in your other email) since that seems something safe to upgrade in a new serie, we might take the new eog or evince or gedit the same way. If we look at the picture the ppa if it collects the bits we are missing should be a pretty small and limited set. Cheers, Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
On 15 October 2011 14:03, Michael Terry wrote: > I agree that 3.2 is not abnormally stable, nor that 3.4 will likely be > abnormally unstable. But each GNOME release does tend to focus as much on > new features and rewrites as on bug fixes. Features and code churns cause > bugs too. If they didn't, the number of GNOME bugs over time would go > strictly down. I think what you're saying is that 3.4 won't necessarily be any more stable than 3.2 and I agree with that too. > And of course, the Ubuntu desktop is more than just GNOME: Unity, LightDM, > Ubuntu One, Software Center, and hardware integration like multiple monitor > support and bluetooth. Those all would be able to get more stability > attention too. > > Holding back would make 12.04 less exciting and fresh. But part of this > question is "What does an LTS means to us?" To me, LTS releases are what I > should suggest to friends and family across the chasm. People that don't > want to upgrade every 6 months. People that place a higher value on things > "just working" than having the latest and greatest. > > I hope that holding back could let us make 12.04 feel like 12.04.1, if you > know what I mean. > > I agree that holding back would create a messaging problem, in both a "not > fair to GNOME Shell" and a "not an exciting release" sense. But first, I > think we have to decide if it's a good engineering decision. It's also a bit unfair in that GNOME developers might have considered 3.4 to be the Ubuntu LTS. One particular bug that would need to be backported is that Vinagre's bookmarking is broken and the dev doesn't want to push for the various freeze exceptions to fix it in the 3.2 series. One problem with trying to target 3.2 is that we won't actually be shipping 3.2 but part 3.2 / part 3.4 / part 3.2 with backported 3.4 features and fixes. And I don't think that is more stable than plain 3.4.1. For instance, I think we likely want g-c-c 3.4. And if we delegate 3.3 to a PPA for "safe testing", then we won't get as many testers as having 3.3 in the main archives. > As I said above, I'm happy if an LTS is not exciting. And I think the GNOME > concerns are misplaced. Projects need people looking after the "long tail" > of stability as well as new features. The bugs we fix make it back to > GNOME. That was actually what I liked best during my time at OEM Services ( > http://mterry.name/log/2010/09/15/what-i-do-in-oem-services/ ). > I hope that a 3.4 PPA would be less broken, because it's not such a crazy > transition as 3.0 was. Yes, I agree that 3.0 was a big exception and we already have some 3.2 stuff in the GNOME3 PPA for Oneiric users. I haven't heard any complaints yet but we've not advertised it either. Jeremy -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
On Sat 15 Oct 2011 03:10:42 EDT, Jeremy Bicha wrote: Hi, I've got a strong opinion on this: I'm very skeptical about staying with GNOME 3.2. I don't think GNOME 3.2 is exceptionally stable or high quality, or that 3.4 will be exceptionally buggy. My blind guess is that 3.4 will generally have less bugs than 3.2 as 3.2 was the first release to build upon the GNOME 3 transition. Only this fall will Debian, Ubuntu, and openSUSE users get GNOME 3 so several bugs haven't even been reported yet (and some bugs won't be fixed in a .1 or .2 update anyway). It would have been foolish to ship KDE 4.1 in two Kubuntu releases in a row for stability purposes. I believe this would be unprecedented for Ubuntu to skip packaging the latest and greatest stable GNOME (except for last spring which was a completely different situation). I agree that 3.2 is not abnormally stable, nor that 3.4 will likely be abnormally unstable. But each GNOME release does tend to focus as much on new features and rewrites as on bug fixes. Features and code churns cause bugs too. If they didn't, the number of GNOME bugs over time would go strictly down. I used to work in the OEM Services team in Canonical. We would take stable Ubuntu releases on a specific hardware platform, customize it, and fix bugs reported by the QA teams involved. We also sometimes would take development Ubuntu releases and do the same thing, tracking Ubuntu development. When working on a stable base, the kind of bugs you can work on are not "this feature doesn't work" but "in this corner case, the feature doesn't work", not "it leaks 1M a minute" but "it leaks 1K a minute", not "it crashes when I open it" but "it crashes when I press all my mouse buttons at once". It's a matter of degree. And of course, the Ubuntu desktop is more than just GNOME: Unity, LightDM, Ubuntu One, Software Center, and hardware integration like multiple monitor support and bluetooth. Those all would be able to get more stability attention too. Holding back would make 12.04 less exciting and fresh. But part of this question is "What does an LTS means to us?" To me, LTS releases are what I should suggest to friends and family across the chasm. People that don't want to upgrade every 6 months. People that place a higher value on things "just working" than having the latest and greatest. I hope that holding back could let us make 12.04 feel like 12.04.1, if you know what I mean. There's a vocal segment of the open source community who believe Canonical is forcing Unity on them and doing a terrible job at making GNOME available. Regardless of the (in)accuracy of that belief, deciding to stick with GNOME 3.2 will be a PR hit and we need to have a very easy-to-understand reason for that decision if it's necessary. I don't think GNOME developers would be very happy with the decision either and it's good to keep upstream as happy as possible :-) I agree that holding back would create a messaging problem, in both a "not fair to GNOME Shell" and a "not an exciting release" sense. But first, I think we have to decide if it's a good engineering decision. As I said above, I'm happy if an LTS is not exciting. And I think the GNOME concerns are misplaced. Projects need people looking after the "long tail" of stability as well as new features. The bugs we fix make it back to GNOME. That was actually what I liked best during my time at OEM Services ( http://mterry.name/log/2010/09/15/what-i-do-in-oem-services/ ). The GNOME 3 PPA on Natty was honestly sort of horrible. Not to say that it didn't have benefits: I used it and for me and others it was quite nice to have. It was also good in encouraging new contributors to volunteer. And I am appreciative of the work it took to produce the PPA (which of course also really helped our GNOME 3 transition early in the Oneiric cycle). But it broke the normal Ubuntu desktop in quite a few unavoidable ways. I hope that a 3.4 PPA would be less broken, because it's not such a crazy transition as 3.0 was. -mt -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
On 13 October 2011 04:49, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > So when I wrote "easy" it was rather "obvious topic for UDS", the choice > is not that easy and I would like everybody to think on going for GNOME > 3.2 or 3.4 will impact on what they are doing, keeping in mind that our > first goal for the LTS is quality. > > Now there are good reasons for going for GNOME 3.4 > > - GNOME 3.2 is still early in the 3 serie and still has issues, they > will keep improving this cycle and some of the improvements would be > good to have > > - we like to have at least an uptodate platform for a lts (i.e glib, > gtk), out of the fact that glib itself is the issue this time > > - some users will want GNOME 3.4 Hi, I've got a strong opinion on this: I'm very skeptical about staying with GNOME 3.2. I don't think GNOME 3.2 is exceptionally stable or high quality, or that 3.4 will be exceptionally buggy. My blind guess is that 3.4 will generally have less bugs than 3.2 as 3.2 was the first release to build upon the GNOME 3 transition. Only this fall will Debian, Ubuntu, and openSUSE users get GNOME 3 so several bugs haven't even been reported yet (and some bugs won't be fixed in a .1 or .2 update anyway). It would have been foolish to ship KDE 4.1 in two Kubuntu releases in a row for stability purposes. I believe this would be unprecedented for Ubuntu to skip packaging the latest and greatest stable GNOME (except for last spring which was a completely different situation). There's a vocal segment of the open source community who believe Canonical is forcing Unity on them and doing a terrible job at making GNOME available. Regardless of the (in)accuracy of that belief, deciding to stick with GNOME 3.2 will be a PR hit and we need to have a very easy-to-understand reason for that decision if it's necessary. I don't think GNOME developers would be very happy with the decision either and it's good to keep upstream as happy as possible :-) > - if we don't go for GNOME 3.4 it's likely the new version will be > packaged in a ppa as GNOME3 was for natty, that's ok but if we do it > because we think glib is going to create issues it's really suboptimal > to let a ppa ship a new version of glib The GNOME 3 PPA on Natty was honestly sort of horrible. Not to say that it didn't have benefits: I used it and for me and others it was quite nice to have. It was also good in encouraging new contributors to volunteer. And I am appreciative of the work it took to produce the PPA (which of course also really helped our GNOME 3 transition early in the Oneiric cycle). But it broke the normal Ubuntu desktop in quite a few unavoidable ways. Jeremy Bicha -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:45:12AM EST, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > That would put us in a position where we can upload at least glib and > gtk, then we need to figure what we do with GNOME 3.2 against 3.4. If we > have an updated stack I would lean toward "stay on 3.2 by default", then > we can maybe update selected components and use the ppa for other things THis is good news. Newer GTK to me always means at least some accessibility fixes, and given my previous topic about accessibility for Precise, accessibility fixes from infrastructure package updates == win for me. I also plan to update at-spi2 to whatever is latest in GNOME, as fixes in this piece of infrastructure don't impact anything outside of accessibility consumers, i.e Orca, accerciser, etc. Luke -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Le jeudi 13 octobre 2011 à 16:23 +0200, Didier Roche a écrit : > I'll be in favor on a lot more polishing work and getting back to > your > backlog instead of rushing this for a LTS. I'm preparing a list of > small > things to polish for getting a precise release and I think everyone > on > the team feeling the need should do the same :-) Hey, What I have been using so far to build the list of "would be nice to get those issues fixed for the LTS" is to use the launchpad "target to serie" and pick Oneiric (need to move those to Precise now the ones we didn't tackle for Oneiric). If others do the same then we can use Pedro's summary as a todolist for the team (at least for the desktop side of thing, then each team member can have a pet projects list) -- Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Sebastien Bacher [2011-10-13 15:45 +0200]: > That would put us in a position where we can upload at least glib and > gtk, then we need to figure what we do with GNOME 3.2 against 3.4. If we > have an updated stack I would lean toward "stay on 3.2 by default", then > we can maybe update selected components and use the ppa for other things Sounds great to me. It served us rather well in natty, and we can certainly use the extra time for stabilization. I'd like to update the core libraries, though. By UDS I'll familiarize myself with udisks2/new gdu, and come with some risk/benefit assessment. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:08:00 -0400, Michael Terry wrote: > I think the GNOME 3.0 PPA worked well as a resource for developers of > GNOME itself and bleeding-edge users; so we can repeat that for 3.4. it did kind of break anything that used apis that gnome3 broke in backwards incompatible ways, such as Ubuntu SSO (used by both the Software Centre and ubuntu One). pgplswA7iiixV.pgp Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Le 13/10/2011 16:08, Michael Terry a écrit : On 13/10/11 09:45, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Ok, discussing with desrt (upstream) on IRC, he says that it shouldn't be that much of an issue, the refactoring work is almost over and they have a good testsuit. He also said they would address issues as they come. We can probably have an updated package we can run to see how it goes before UDS. That would put us in a position where we can upload at least glib and gtk, then we need to figure what we do with GNOME 3.2 against 3.4. If we have an updated stack I would lean toward "stay on 3.2 by default", then we can maybe update selected components and use the ppa for other things I am also pro-staying-on-3.2. I think freeing the desktop team to focus on bugs (including 3.4 backports if necessary), memory leaks, and polish is appropriate for an LTS. I think the GNOME 3.0 PPA worked well as a resource for developers of GNOME itself and bleeding-edge users; so we can repeat that for 3.4. But I think an increased stability focus is better for the across-the-chasm users that prefer only-every-two-year LTS upgrades. If we can be comfortable with new glib/gtk by UDS, then at least we won't be holding back updates in universe packages during the cycle. Totally agree on thae plan as well. I'll be in favor on a lot more polishing work and getting back to your backlog instead of rushing this for a LTS. I'm preparing a list of small things to polish for getting a precise release and I think everyone on the team feeling the need should do the same :-) Didier -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
On 13/10/11 09:45, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Ok, discussing with desrt (upstream) on IRC, he says that it shouldn't be that much of an issue, the refactoring work is almost over and they have a good testsuit. He also said they would address issues as they come. We can probably have an updated package we can run to see how it goes before UDS. That would put us in a position where we can upload at least glib and gtk, then we need to figure what we do with GNOME 3.2 against 3.4. If we have an updated stack I would lean toward "stay on 3.2 by default", then we can maybe update selected components and use the ppa for other things I am also pro-staying-on-3.2. I think freeing the desktop team to focus on bugs (including 3.4 backports if necessary), memory leaks, and polish is appropriate for an LTS. I think the GNOME 3.0 PPA worked well as a resource for developers of GNOME itself and bleeding-edge users; so we can repeat that for 3.4. But I think an increased stability focus is better for the across-the-chasm users that prefer only-every-two-year LTS upgrades. If we can be comfortable with new glib/gtk by UDS, then at least we won't be holding back updates in universe packages during the cycle. -mt -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Le jeudi 13 octobre 2011 à 10:49 +0200, Sebastien Bacher a écrit : > - glib is going though quite some refactoring [1], it should stay > compatible but it change how glib work and could have bug, that seems > risky for the lts Ok, discussing with desrt (upstream) on IRC, he says that it shouldn't be that much of an issue, the refactoring work is almost over and they have a good testsuit. He also said they would address issues as they come. We can probably have an updated package we can run to see how it goes before UDS. That would put us in a position where we can upload at least glib and gtk, then we need to figure what we do with GNOME 3.2 against 3.4. If we have an updated stack I would lean toward "stay on 3.2 by default", then we can maybe update selected components and use the ppa for other things What do you think? -- Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Le mardi 04 octobre 2011 à 09:53 +0200, Sebastien Bacher a écrit : > Hey, > > So first easy one, discuss what GNOME version we will track for the > LTS. > It's basically a discussion we have at every UDS ;-) Hey again, So when I wrote "easy" it was rather "obvious topic for UDS", the choice is not that easy and I would like everybody to think on going for GNOME 3.2 or 3.4 will impact on what they are doing, keeping in mind that our first goal for the LTS is quality. Let me bootstrap the discussion and share some of the concerns I have: - glib is going though quite some refactoring [1], it should stay compatible but it change how glib work and could have bug, that seems risky for the lts - while we usually keep up with GNOME updates they take some time and the .0 quality is never "great", .1 tend to be better and the schedule should allow us to get .1 in for the LTS but still, time spent on tracking features is not spent on fixing bugs - new glib and gtk will deprecate apis as usual, that's not an issue but lead to work on the archive to fix that stop building due to that - seems like udisk2 (udisk rewrite) should land in GNOME 3.4, having a rewrite landing in the lts cycle is risky, gnome-disk-utility, gvfs and some other bits in GNOME are being ported to it and will not keep an udisk1 backend so 3.4 will likely force that choice on us Now there are good reasons for going for GNOME 3.4 - GNOME 3.2 is still early in the 3 serie and still has issues, they will keep improving this cycle and some of the improvements would be good to have - we like to have at least an uptodate platform for a lts (i.e glib, gtk), out of the fact that glib itself is the issue this time - some users will want GNOME 3.4 Some of my thoughs on the challenges: - glib 2.31 will likely get support for their improvement "application menu", which means it's likely most applications will depend on the new glib, which is going to make hard to update some components only - if we don't go for GNOME 3.4 it's likely the new version will be packaged in a ppa as GNOME3 was for natty, that's ok but if we do it because we think glib is going to create issues it's really suboptimal to let a ppa ship a new version of glib - some of the goals for next cycle are to improve the control center, we will really want most of g-s-d and g-c-c 3.4 I think, we could probably play some backporting game there or get 3.4 to work on GNOME 3.2... Thanks for reading and please share you though on the topic, we can start the discussion on the list to include extra people and collect extra arguments before the UDS session Cheers, Sebastien Bacher [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2011-September "GLib "next cycle" update" -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
[Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Hey, So first easy one, discuss what GNOME version we will track for the LTS. It's basically a discussion we have at every UDS ;-) Cheers, Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
