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 velocity and agilit
On 3/5/13 4:21 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:10:55AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
apt should never do that, and that would be a major bug that we should fix.
Do you have a bug reference for this behavior in apt (preferably with a
reproducer case)?
This reminded me of thi
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:10:55AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> >apt should never do that, and that would be a major bug that we should fix.
> >Do you have a bug reference for this behavior in apt (preferably with a
> >reproducer case)?
> This reminded me of this older bug from Karmic-Lucid era,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Rick Spencer
wrote:
> Therefore, I think we should keep LTS releases, but starting now, stop doing
> interim releases and start a rolling release.
>
> More clearly, I think we should:
> * Stop making interim releases.
> * Keep doing daily quality and keep improving
On 3/4/13 12:46 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 12:42:30PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
On 3/3/13 4:54 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 11:36:45AM +0100, Nicolas Delvaux wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-02 at 09:32 +, Colin Watson wrote:
I'm surprised, because when I
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 12:42:30PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On 3/3/13 4:54 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 11:36:45AM +0100, Nicolas Delvaux wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2013-03-02 at 09:32 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >>>I'm surprised, because when I hunt around for people talking ab
On 3/3/13 4:54 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 11:36:45AM +0100, Nicolas Delvaux wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-02 at 09:32 +, Colin Watson wrote:
I'm surprised, because when I hunt around for people talking about
their experiences running raring I've generally found them favourably
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013, Philipp Kern wrote:
> am Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:42:03AM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> > I'm not intimate with the costs needed on the archive side when opening
> > a new series, so can't go in details about these, but I suppose it
> > ranges from creating new buildd
Loïc,
am Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:42:03AM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> I'm not intimate with the costs needed on the archive side when opening
> a new series, so can't go in details about these, but I suppose it
> ranges from creating new buildd chroots, updating a bunch of scripts,
> usi
Hi,
Rick Spencer wrote:
> ... rolling releases ...
As the LibreOffice maintainer I am very happy to hear this, for a set of
reasons, but since so many have already been covered, let me just focus on the
two most essential:
- while the upstream release plan was explicitly crafted to arrive with a
On Sat, Mar 02, 2013, Robert Collins 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 th
On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 11:36:45AM +0100, Nicolas Delvaux wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-02 at 09:32 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I'm surprised, because when I hunt around for people talking about
> > their experiences running raring I've generally found them favourably
> > contrasting its stability wi
> As an application developer I want a stable environment that isn't too
> far behind upstream. I don't want to deal with changing APIs when I'm
> working on a project.
I don't think you can expect that from a rolling release. Things will be
changing regularly.
SR
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tum
Hi everyone,
On Fri, 2013-03-02 at 09:32 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> I'm surprised, because when I hunt around for people talking about
> their experiences running raring I've generally found them favourably
> contrasting its stability with that of prior development releases.
> Indeed I hear tha
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 07:16:58PM +0100, Philip Muskovac wrote:
> Let me add that due to
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1077116
> (automoc4 crashes in qemu-virtualized armhf)
> Kubuntu doesn't have any *usable* armhf PPA builders right now as KDE
> software
> doesn't compile in qemu.
FWIW,
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 10:34:25PM -0800, Tobin Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 16:52 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Just using 'apt-get dist-upgrade' all the time, or something with closer
> > semantics to that, is better.
>
> Oh, then you've fixed the issue where dist-upgrade removes packag
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 16:52 +, 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 pre
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
Colin Watson [2013-03-01 16:49 +]:
> While I think monthly image releases make sense, I don't personally like
> the notion of monthly updates at all
FWIW, I fully agree, I was just contemplating how we would implement
it in the easiest possible manner should we have to do it at all. I
would re
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:31:49 +0100, 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 w
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
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, 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
== 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 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
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 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, 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
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:
> > 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 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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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.
>
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, 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
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
