On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 08:17:15PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 1 March 2013 06:52, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > source.list changes from one monthly to the next. Launchpad series are
> > in too many places and would be too expensive to create/update monthly
> > :-/
> I'd like to challenge that.
On 1 March 2013 06:52, Loïc Minier wrote:
> source.list changes from one monthly to the next. Launchpad series are
> in too many places and would be too expensive to create/update monthly
> :-/
I'd like to challenge that. Currently LP series happen every 6 months.
Monthly is only 6 times the fr
On Saturday, March 02, 2013 09:34:22 AM Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
top post fixed.
> On 3/2/13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> >>On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 07:37:34PM +0400, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> >>> We must decide whether the rolling branch is for users/enthusiasts or
> >>> for dev
I meant "there are already some apps from GNOME 3.7 in raring, while
core GNOME components are at 3.6".
--
Dmitry Shachnev
On 3/2/13, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> OK, if we can't backport full KDE / GNOME, we can at least backport
> some individual apps (that don't depend on new versions of librarie
OK, if we can't backport full KDE / GNOME, we can at least backport
some individual apps (that don't depend on new versions of libraries).
I don't know about KDE, but in GNOME lots of apps look backportable
(for example, there are already some parts of GNOME 3.7 in raring,
which is based while core
Am Fri, 1 Mar 2013 15:12:38 +0200
schrieb Stefano Rivera :
> Ubuntu has a few packages Debian doesn't. Including a desktop
> environment that people seem to complain about a lot.
Unity would actually be one of the very few things that could keep me
with Ubuntu.
> Most developers want to be devel
For the "monthly" option as I understand it this means once a month you
get todays latest stuff. Next month you upgrade from last months latest
stuff to todays latest stuff.
This is not really what I want, if I want to take a conservative
attitude to life. What I want is to be the penguin at the
On Friday, March 01, 2013 03:18:26 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 01:31:37AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > 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 ne
On Friday, March 01, 2013 08:15:13 PM Evan Dandrea wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > No would be a good time to be discussing this change for after 14.04.
> > Doing this mid LTS - LTS cycle is going to be problematic for a variety
> > of reasons. I we had a year
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 01:31:37AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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 un
Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Colin Watson
>wrote:
>> ...
>>> - Create and use -experimental pocket (as suggested by Stefano) for
>>> testing unstable changes and handling transitions;
>>
>> I can understand why people ask for this, but new pockets are very
>> complex t
Colin Watson wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 07:37:34PM +0400, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
>> We must decide whether the rolling branch is for users/enthusiasts or
>> for developers only. If the latter (it's what most of us like), we
>are
>> *not* switching to rolling release model. We are just droppi
Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM, 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
14:00 - 20:00 UTC actually
Michael Hall
mhall...@ubuntu.com
On 03/01/2013 12:05 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:31:04AM -0800, Jono Bacon wrote:
>> [?] we decided that we couldn?t wait until May to run this new
>> forma
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Sounds familiar:
> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/livefs-build-logs/raring/ubuntu/
haha, I couldn't find were the /latest were; checked cdimage and it
didn't have them :-)
--
Loïc Minier
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lis
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 10:13:39PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The latter option (publish immediately, symlink only after passing
> > tests) would be simpler to implement and is probably the most plausible
> > way to do this; after all if you don't publ
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 10:55:14AM +, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Certainly we don't want people to instinctively dismiss the dialog.
> The recent redesign has aimed at getting consent more often.
> But changing the updates frequency instead is a valid option, because
> Software Sources has
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 05:40:26PM +, Colin Watson 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 ca
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013, Colin Watson wrote:
> The latter option (publish immediately, symlink only after passing
> tests) would be simpler to implement and is probably the most plausible
> way to do this; after all if you don't publish them at all on cdimage
> then you have to invent some new way to
Hi Colin (2013.03.01_19:10:04_+0200)
> I wonder whether we could petition for the Canonical-only restrictions
> on devirtualised PPAs to be lifted for people in ~ubuntu-dev as a
> consequence of this release plan, and what other changes that would
> take.
Presumably devirt PPAs would have to not t
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> No would be a good time to be discussing this change for after 14.04. Doing
> this mid LTS - LTS cycle is going to be problematic for a variety of reasons.
> I we had a year to get ready, then we might be in a reasonable place to decide
> o
On Friday 01 March 2013 01:31:37 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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 g
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:20:11PM +0400, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Serious question: why is GTK+ materially different from the core KDE
> > libraries, which typically seem to be updated (even if only by minor
> > releases) as part of KDE vers
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:01:25PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 01, 2013, at 04:52 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> >FWIW, I have come to believe that nobody should use 'apt-get upgrade' as
> >a general rule. In particular, since it tries its best to install as
> >much as it can under the constrai
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 04:48:21PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> On 01/03/2013 15:12, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> >And we have to ask the question of what advantage Ubuntu is providing
> >over Debian, without 6-monthly releases.
>
> I think for the hacker. for the enthusiast, for the p
LTS point releases (12.04.1 , 12.04.2 , etc.) and semi-rolling release
I totally agree with how the foundations are getting in place for a rolling
model. Obstacles like the daily quality and even the fixed 6 month UDS which
also was a kind of obstacle have all been addressed and updated to acco
== TL;DR ==
Apologies for the improper post, but my gmail account didn't get the
entire thread. I'm not a dev, just a long time user (since Warty
[technically, since Hoary as Warty pissed me off for some reason I can't
remember]. I've also provided support/installed Ubuntu for several
hundred lay
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:24:59PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Perhaps it would make sense to extend 12.10 support by 6 months to give 12.10
> users a decent interval to upgrade.
Agreed. I understand the desire to cut costs, but giving people zero
days to switch over after we didn't tell the
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:47:21PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> Perhaps it might also be correct to not refer to the "rolling
> release" as a release at all, but simply the current development
> version.
People outside the project are going to call it a rolling release
anyway; I don't see much po
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 05:15:38PM -0600, 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
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:13:27AM -0500, Michael Hall wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 11:19 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > "Rolling" can't both have stable APIs and be the development platform. You
> > need to pick one.
>
> They APIs don't have to be static, they just have to be backwards
> compatible.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:55:31PM +, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Rick Spencer wrote on 28/02/13 20:41:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas
> >> I don't understand why you are proposing monthly snapshots at
> >> all. Can you elaborate?
> >
> > The monthly snapshots woul
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:59:19PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:11:27PM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > I think we need to train our britney to block on Debian or Ubuntu RC
> > bugs. Maybe this will also allow the Kubuntu developers to package the
> > KDE beta updates wi
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> ...
>> - Create and use -experimental pocket (as suggested by Stefano) for
>> testing unstable changes and handling transitions;
>
> I can understand why people ask for this, but new pockets are very
> complex to create due to extensive hardcod
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:09:04PM -0500, Michael Hall wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 06:01 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 encour
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 07:37:34PM +0400, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> We must decide whether the rolling branch is for users/enthusiasts or
> for developers only. If the latter (it's what most of us like), we are
> *not* switching to rolling release model. We are just dropping non-LTS
> releases.
If
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:31:04AM -0800, Jono Bacon wrote:
> […] we decided that we couldn’t wait until May to run this new
> format for UDS, so the first online UDS will be taking place next week from
> 5th - 6th March 2013 from 4pm UTC - 10pm UTC […]
FYI, for those of you who haven't noti
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 07:12:03AM +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
> As we now move to a rolling release schedule, when is the right time
> to do a wide-scale testing and report bugs? Without just being met
> with a "please check if it's fixed in the next version" message?
I think we should deal w
On Mar 01, 2013, at 04:52 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:12:34PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Long gone are the days where a `apt-get upgrade` has broken my system
>> (knock on wood) and while I do inspect dist-upgrades a little more
>> carefully, they are usually pretty reli
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 05:46:19AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Loïc Minier [2013-02-28 18:18 +0100]:
[...]
> > > * What is the purpose of these snapshots, i. e. who would use them?
> > >If all our published daily images are good enough to install, boot,
> > >and get you into a desktop, and
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:12:34PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Long gone are the days where a `apt-get upgrade` has broken my system
> (knock on wood) and while I do inspect dist-upgrades a little more
> carefully, they are usually pretty reliable too.
FWIW, I have come to believe that nobody sho
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 05:54:32AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Loïc Minier [2013-02-28 18:27 +0100]:
> > New series are super expensive to create, need coordination in a bunch
> > of places etc. and it means we're using the release dist upgrade
> > mechanisms rather than updating packages.
>
> It
On 03/01/2013 12:34 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> 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
On 02/28/2013 11:19 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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
>>>
On 01/03/2013 16:48, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
It would be interesting to see what happens to 13.04 users, they
wouldn't have an upgrade path to 14.04 if there are no releases in
between. I guess they'll either have to be told "sorry, too bad" or
14.04 would have to be upgradeable from
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM, 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
On Mar 01, 2013, at 03:12 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>And we have to ask the question of what advantage Ubuntu is providing
>over Debian, without 6-monthly releases.
I suppose one other difference is that Ubuntu will still used time-based
releases (just on a different schedule) while Debian will s
On Mar 01, 2013, at 08:18 AM, Ted Gould wrote:
>The problem there being that UDS is only signing up for more work, not a
>point where the work has to be delivered :-) Ubuntu has had, in the
>past, an issue where the run up for UDS involves making sure we mark
>everything as POSTPONED.
I don't th
Hi Jonathan (2013.03.01_16:48:21_+0200)
> What bothers me more than user loss is developer loss. It's a fact
> that Ubuntu as a community project is currently completely
> unsustainable.
...
> >If we are finding that our non-LTS releases aren't stable enough, and
> >people are using the LTSs, what
Howdy Stefano
Well, firstly, it's nice to see some action on ubuntu-devel again :)
...
On 01/03/2013 15:12, Stefano Rivera wrote:
And we have to ask the question of what advantage Ubuntu is providing
over Debian, without 6-monthly releases.
I think for the hacker. for the enthusiast, for the
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 12:10 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > I don't think that's feasible with a RR model. We don't even control
> > most of the APIs that are in Ubuntu even.
> >
> > As Matthew Paul Thomas and others pointed out, we primarily want to
> > r
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Florian (2013.03.01_14:06:37_+0200)
>> > That means users could choose:
>> > * The LTS release
>> > * The rolling release updated daily or as frequently as desired
>> > * The rolling release updated at least monthly
>>
>> Neither of tho
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 19:03 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 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
Hi Florian (2013.03.01_14:06:37_+0200)
> > That means users could choose:
> > * The LTS release
> > * The rolling release updated daily or as frequently as desired
> > * The rolling release updated at least monthly
>
> Neither of those choices fits my needs. I want new versions more
> often tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan Riddell wrote on 28/02/13 16:49:
>
> Along with no UDS this feels like a further move away from being a
> community project for Ubuntu.
>
> After much time lobbying KDE (and other upstreams) to move to 6
> monthly releases that has been wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote on 01/03/13 01:44:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:05:35PM -0800, 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 t
Il giorno ven, 01/03/2013 alle 07.12 +0100, David Henningsson ha
scritto:
> When I was new to Ubuntu, the intuitive thing to do to help out was to
> download a beta release, test it, and report bugs. That's what betas are
> for, right? Well, I learned that if I did that, the developers were
> tr
Am Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:31:49 -0800
schrieb Rick Spencer :
> That means users could choose:
> * The LTS release
> * The rolling release updated daily or as frequently as desired
> * The rolling release updated at least monthly
Neither of those choices fits my needs. I want new versions more
oft
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013, Martin Pitt wrote:
> I don't think that's feasible with a RR model. We don't even control
> most of the APIs that are in Ubuntu even.
>
> As Matthew Paul Thomas and others pointed out, we primarily want to
> recommend the LTS releases on the download page and for most users,
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/release-r-monthly-snapshots
> Can this be made public? At least to me it appears as a nonexisting
> page.
Link broke because it was renamed to comply with summit.u.c
expectations; it's now at:
https://bluepr
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > I'm not sure how you'd deliver security updates between monthlies
> > though?
> The way I was seeing it, you turn off APT updates from the regular archive,
> but leave them in place for the security archive. In between monthlies you
> fetch securi
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:18:11 +0100, Tarmo Alexander Sundström
wrote:
Actually this whole rolling release proposition starts to sound like...
Debian :)
stable = LTS
testing = Rolling Release
unstable = staging area for dev work / raring-proposed
Seems like a logical solution to me. At l
hi,
On Do, 2013-02-28 at 23:55 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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
hi,
On Do, 2013-02-28 at 17:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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-m
2013/2/22 Scott Ritchie :
> 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 + proprietary amd
2013/2/22 Scott Ritchie :
> I'm not sure what the underlying fix should be, but it is making me question
> if there's some sort of larger process issue here because we've managed to
> drop this on the floor for so long.
A good question. It might be that the proprietary drivers haven't been
pushed
Actually this whole rolling release proposition starts to sound like...
Debian :)
stable = LTS
testing = Rolling Release
unstable = staging area for dev work / raring-proposed
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.co
67 matches
Mail list logo
