On 13 March 2013 03:57, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> Understood. IMHO that "LTS mode" would significantly reduce the benefits
> compared to the current LTS. Current LTS promises to keep
> you secure with a behavior mostly unchanged. It gives you unchanged
> behavior for 99% of
On 12 March 2013 17:23, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 3/9/2013 6:45 AM, Otus wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Robert Bruce Park
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Although I feel quite strongly about my support for the rolling
>>> release model, if it is rejected, we can't continue as we used to. We
>>> si
On 3/9/2013 6:45 AM, Otus wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Robert Bruce Park
wrote:
Although I feel quite strongly about my support for the rolling
release model, if it is rejected, we can't continue as we used to. We
simply do not have the resources to support more than two releases at
a
Robert Collins wrote:
> On 12 March 2013 23:07, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand how this "configuration" would work,
>> especially with security updates. I'm probably missing something, so
>> let's have an example. Let's say I install "Ubuntu" on January 1st, 2014
>> and set it
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Robert Bruce Park
wrote:
> Although I feel quite strongly about my support for the rolling
> release model, if it is rejected, we can't continue as we used to. We
> simply do not have the resources to support more than two releases at
> a time. I'd prefer to only ha
On 12 March 2013 23:07, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I'm not saying you can't use dailies to care for "getting an install
> media". You were listing what, technically, a release means today. I'm
> just saying that as of today, "releases" also mean a reference install
> media.
Ack.
> I'm not sure I u
Robert Collins wrote:
> On 11 March 2013 23:12, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Robert Collins wrote:
>
>>> A - an archive that we place a high friction change process on,
>>> intended to eliminate regressions [the SRU]
>>> B - a logical name that users can associate with a /large/ bundle of
>>> changes
> Clint Byrum writes:
> I actually think this is already how many server/cloud users use Ubuntu
> right now anyway. Run the LTS as your core, encapsulate your custom apps
> in containers/virtualenvs/rvms/etc.
Indeed. And this goes both ways: you can run a precise container on
rar
On 11 March 2013 23:12, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> A - an archive that we place a high friction change process on,
>> intended to eliminate regressions [the SRU]
>> B - a logical name that users can associate with a /large/ bundle of
>> changes. One can say 'Unity in Raring
On 11 March 2013 23:25, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Robert Collins wrote:
>>> - Move the concept of using 'a release of Ubuntu' to using 'a
>>> configuration' - LTS is 'keep my behaviour unchanged', interim
>>> releases are 'give me new features when they are production quali
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2013-03-11 03:12:45 -0700:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > One thing I think has been missing from the discussion so far has been
> > in reviewing our *definition* of a release. There was some mention of
> > defining what Ubuntu is - how big the surface area we
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> - Move the concept of using 'a release of Ubuntu' to using 'a
>> configuration' - LTS is 'keep my behaviour unchanged', interim
>> releases are 'give me new features when they are production quality'
>> and 'development edition' is 'give me new stuf
Robert Collins wrote:
> One thing I think has been missing from the discussion so far has been
> in reviewing our *definition* of a release. There was some mention of
> defining what Ubuntu is - how big the surface area we maintain, vs app
> developers maintain and deliver /on/.
>
> I'd like to de
Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>On 10/03/2013 09:35, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> [...]
>> There's still the requirement to keep things in sync. That's what I
>was
>> referring to. Also, for many common targets for SRUs/late bug fixes
>that are
>> actively maintained, the packages in the development relea
On 10/03/2013 09:35, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> [...]
> There's still the requirement to keep things in sync. That's what I was
> referring to. Also, for many common targets for SRUs/late bug fixes that are
> actively maintained, the packages in the development release would quickly
> diverge and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/09/2013 08:35 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> There's still the requirement to keep things in sync. That's what
> I was referring to. Also, for many common targets for SRUs/late
> bug fixes that are actively maintained, the packages in the
> devel
On Saturday, March 09, 2013 08:31:09 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/09/2013 03:09 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> 2) Rather than upload to raring, then freeze, then release
> >> raring as stable, change the model slightly so we have uploads
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/09/2013 03:32 PM, Philip Muskovac wrote:
> The *good* side of being frozen and stopping development, is that
> you actually force people to stop developing and instead
> concentrate on testing and fixing bugs. The moment you open a new
> developm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/09/2013 03:09 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> 2) Rather than upload to raring, then freeze, then release
>> raring as stable, change the model slightly so we have uploads
>> going to the "unstable" release. Then say, 3 months prior to the
>> dead
On 8 March 2013 14:19, Rick Spencer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There has been a lot of discussion and impact around the strawman
> proposal for changing our release cadence that I sent last Thursday.
> There was a misconception that the proposal was a decision that I was
> masking as a call for discussi
On Saturday 09 March 2013 14:56:55 Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 03/09/2013 12:29 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > One thing I have not seen described (or possibly I missed it - there's
> > been a lot of traffic on this topic) is how the transition from "It's
> > rolling" to "We're getting ready to releas
On Saturday, March 09, 2013 02:56:55 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 03/09/2013 12:29 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > One thing I have not seen described (or possibly I missed it - there's
> > been a lot of traffic on this topic) is how the transition from "It's
> > rolling" to "We're getting ready to r
On 03/09/2013 12:29 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
One thing I have not seen described (or possibly I missed it - there's been a
lot of traffic on this topic) is how the transition from "It's rolling" to
"We're getting ready to release an LTS" would happen?
Yes, there hasn't been much discussion on
On Thursday, March 07, 2013 05:19:35 PM Rick Spencer wrote:
...
> 1. Move to a rolling release similar to what I proposed in the
> original straw man.
...
One thing I have not seen described (or possibly I missed it - there's been a
lot of traffic on this topic) is how the transition from "It's r
Having only LTS and "the rolling release", ie. precise and raring for
example, would cut down on the number of distributions any maintainer of a
3:rd party repository would need to support.
Right now if you have a PPA you need to maintain it for precise and quantal
and raring and then ss etc.
L
As others pointed out "no change" is the default choice. However, if
someone wants to capture our current release cadence and support model
to the wiki, I don't see why there would be any objection to that.
Cheers, Rick
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Rick Spencer wrote
I'd like to add a few points to this that I feel haven't got much
attention. Before I do, however, I'd like to explain that while I have used
Ubuntu for a long time and paid attention to the development process, there
are so many things that know very little about. For that reason, I don't
really w
1. Move to a rolling release similar to what I proposed in the
> original straw man.
> 2. Continue to release interim releases but only support them until
> roughly the next interim release 6 months later.
> 3. Dramatically increase the rate of our releases to, say, once per month.
>
> I think ther
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, Jono Bacon wrote:
> I presume that if there is no proposed change, there would be no
> proposal to take to the TB,
The status-quo has both merits and demerits. It is necessary to
evaluate those as thoughly as the rest, to adequately explore the
problem, and available solution
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, March 07, 2013 08:01:37 PM Allison Randal wrote:
>> On 03/07/2013 07:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > Maintaining the current cadence should also be one of the options.
>>
>> That would be the default if no proposal was submit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-03-07 07:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Rick Spencer wrote:
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseCadence/SixMonthInterimRelease
>
> Maintaining the current cadence should also be one of the options.
>
I disagree, the current cadence (along with
On Thursday, March 07, 2013 08:01:37 PM Allison Randal wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 07:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Maintaining the current cadence should also be one of the options.
>
> That would be the default if no proposal was submitted to the TB or no
> proposal approved by the TB.
>
> Or, d
On 03/07/2013 07:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> Maintaining the current cadence should also be one of the options.
That would be the default if no proposal was submitted to the TB or no
proposal approved by the TB.
Or, do you mean there's value in writing up the advantages of the
current cad
Rick Spencer wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>There has been a lot of discussion and impact around the strawman
>proposal for changing our release cadence that I sent last Thursday.
>There was a misconception that the proposal was a decision that I was
>masking as a call for discussion. I want to reassure ever
Hi all,
There has been a lot of discussion and impact around the strawman
proposal for changing our release cadence that I sent last Thursday.
There was a misconception that the proposal was a decision that I was
masking as a call for discussion. I want to reassure everyone that I
really did mean
35 matches
Mail list logo
