-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-03-12 10:45 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 13 March 2013 05:53, Robert Bruce Park
> wrote:
>> Considering that Ubuntu has yet to be fully adopted by the
>> mainstream, I'm pretty sure that *all of Ubuntu* skews pretty
>> heavily towards early ad
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Robert Collins
wrote:
> Mainstream *what*?
>
> Desktop users? Sure.
> Datacentre operators? We are --wy-- beyond early adopters here.
>
> Our user base is very varied and you have to segment it to reason
> sensibly about the stats we have.
At to be clear, the
On 13 March 2013 05:53, Robert Bruce Park wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 13-03-12 09:34 AM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
>> I am fairly certain that the metrics from Steam skew towards early
>> adopters.
>
> Considering that Ubuntu has yet to be fully adopted by the mainstr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-03-12 09:34 AM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> I am fairly certain that the metrics from Steam skew towards early
> adopters.
Considering that Ubuntu has yet to be fully adopted by the mainstream,
I'm pretty sure that *all of Ubuntu* skews pretty heavil
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Jason Taylor wrote:
> Steam has released there OS Stats which probably has some bearing here
>
> 0.62% on 12.04.* LTS and 1.7% on 12.10 so over double the users are not
> using the LTS
>
> No doubt that skews towards home users over business users
I am fairly cert
Steam has released there OS Stats which probably has some bearing here
0.62% on 12.04.* LTS and 1.7% on 12.10 so over double the users are not
using the LTS
No doubt that skews towards home users over business users
The real news is steam has done what ubuntu can't do, they are supporting
all th
Excerpts from Bjoern Michaelsen's message of 2013-03-10 16:40:56 -0700:
> Hi all,
>
> Rob wrote:
> > On 10 March 2013 14:38, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > > Our SRU policy reflects this: we only allow updates to stable releases for
> > > specific bugfixes, and don't allow other changes.
> >
> >
On Monday, March 11, 2013 12:40:56 AM Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Rob wrote:
> > On 10 March 2013 14:38, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Our SRU policy reflects this: we only allow updates to stable releases
> > > for
> > > specific bugfixes, and don't allow other changes.
> >
> > ... exc
Hi all,
Rob wrote:
> On 10 March 2013 14:38, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Our SRU policy reflects this: we only allow updates to stable releases for
> > specific bugfixes, and don't allow other changes.
>
> ... except for firefox. And kernels.
>
> -Rob
And for LibreOffice. Except that it doesn
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 03:54:21PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 10 March 2013 14:38, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Our SRU policy reflects this: we only allow updates to stable releases for
> > specific bugfixes, and don't allow other changes.
> ... except for firefox.
As a necessary concessio
On 10 March 2013 14:38, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Our SRU policy reflects this: we only allow updates to stable releases for
> specific bugfixes, and don't allow other changes.
... except for firefox. And kernels.
-Rob
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings o
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 07:41:23PM -0500, Michael Hall wrote:
> I think different segments of the community have different ideas of what
> "stable" means:
> Distro devs & power users: "stable" == "things don't break"
> App devs, OEMS, NTEU: "stable" == "things don't change"
As a distro dev, I do
On 03/07/2013 02:03 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 09:40 AM, Steve Magoun wrote:
>> >
>> > Some observations from the big-OEM perspective:
>> > 1) The support lifecycle of the OS is important; an 18 month support
>> > lifecycle is too short for a product that may be manufactured for 3
On 03/07/2013 01:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40:44 PM Steve Magoun wrote:
> ...
>> 3) Stability is critical and the quality standards are high. Functionality
>> like suspend/resume has to be rock-solid. To date, even the LTS releases
>> need tweaks before they'r
On 03/07/2013 09:40 AM, Steve Magoun wrote:
>
> Some observations from the big-OEM perspective:
> 1) The support lifecycle of the OS is important; an 18 month support
> lifecycle is too short for a product that may be manufactured for 3 years
> 2) Switching OSes in the factory is expensive and lar
On 3/7/13 3:12 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bryce Harrington wrote on 06/03/13 15:45:
...
He means not just the core OS but also the application ecosystem.
In Windows the OS release is just the core OS, and then users
manually install newer versi
On Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40:44 PM Steve Magoun wrote:
...
> 3) Stability is critical and the quality standards are high. Functionality
> like suspend/resume has to be rock-solid. To date, even the LTS releases
> need tweaks before they're stable enough to be delivered to OEMs.
...
Have all t
On 03/06/2013 02:10 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 07:47 PM, Robert Bruce Park wrote:
>>
>> That's how I've been interpreting this all along... 2-year release
>> cadence, and the current dev release is simply declared "rolling"
>> without any real changes. I don't see any issues with t
Proposals like moving to a rolling release are an attempt to
evolve our existing processes to new realities and requirements,
but I think we need to go one step farther and question why we
are so tied to our distro model, where apps and platform are
tightly bound.
The convenience of "one-stop sh
On 03/07/2013 06:50 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>> We've gone a long way to making backports easier, but I don't think
>> there's much low-hanging fruit left. We can provide more help, and
>> spread the word that backports can be easy. That's about it?
>
> Mostly what we need is (like many thing
On Thursday, March 07, 2013 04:43:18 PM Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Scott (2013.03.07_16:27:02_+0200)
>
> > > These are users who otherwise would use the LTS, but need some
> > > particular feature or version of some program that is newer than the
> > > LTS.
> >
> > This is exactly the case that b
Hi Scott (2013.03.07_16:27:02_+0200)
> > These are users who otherwise would use the LTS, but need some
> > particular feature or version of some program that is newer than the
> > LTS.
>
> This is exactly the case that backports are for. I don't think users who
> want
> a generally stable expe
On Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:52:40 AM Robie Basak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 07:34:55AM -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
> > Also remember that, as the idea currently stands, the tiny set of
> > "enthusiasts" are the only people who will get updated versions of
> > applications. The majority of
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 07:34:55AM -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
> Also remember that, as the idea currently stands, the tiny set of
> "enthusiasts" are the only people who will get updated versions of
> applications. The majority of users will have a stale experience, and no
> reasonable alternativ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bryce Harrington wrote on 06/03/13 15:45:
> ...
>
> He means not just the core OS but also the application ecosystem.
> In Windows the OS release is just the core OS, and then users
> manually install newer versions of whatever applications they
> wan
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 12:13:30PM -0800, Alex Chiang wrote:
> Let's spend our time improving plumbing like making app backports
> to the stable platform easy or enabling system updates on an
> embedded device in a sane manner or maintaining library APIs
> across stable releases.
This still needs
On 06.03.2013 23:51, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 3/6/2013 1:28 AM, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>> As far as I understand, a really good effort is already put into the
>> hardware enablement part in LTS. So hypothetically, if a dozen or so
>
> It is? The kernel team backports drivers for new
* Allison Randal :
> > On 06/03/2013 16:19, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> >> There are three parts to Rick's proposal:
> >> 1. dropping non-LTS releases
> >> 2. making the development version a "rolling release" stable enough
> >> for enthusiast use
> >> 3. introducing monthly snapshots.
[..
On 3/6/2013 1:28 AM, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
As far as I understand, a really good effort is already put into the
hardware enablement part in LTS. So hypothetically, if a dozen or so
It is? The kernel team backports drivers for new hardware to the LTS
kernel? I didn't think that
On 03/06/2013 07:51 AM, Anca Emanuel wrote:
> [quote]As the conversation runs on, these "enthusiasts" appear to be a smaller
> and smaller subset of the Ubuntu user base.[/quote]
>
> You will be surprised how many people prefer an rolling release.
>
> Think a bit: that will be the next LTS, so it
Allison Randal wrote:
>On 03/06/2013 07:51 AM, Anca Emanuel wrote:
>> [quote]As the conversation runs on, these "enthusiasts" appear to be
>a smaller
>> and smaller subset of the Ubuntu user base.[/quote]
>>
>> You will be surprised how many people prefer an rolling release.
>>
>> Think a bit:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:19:52PM +, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Michael Hall wrote on 06/03/13 00:41:
> >
> > On 03/05/2013 06:49 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> >>
> >> There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on
> >> c
On 03/06/2013 07:13 AM, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 16:19, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
>> There are three parts to Rick's proposal:
>> 1. dropping non-LTS releases
>> 2. making the development version a "rolling release" stable enough
>> for enthusiast use
>> 3. intr
On 06/03/2013 16:19, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
There are three parts to Rick's proposal:
1. dropping non-LTS releases
2. making the development version a "rolling release" stable enough
for enthusiast use
3. introducing monthly snapshots.
Thanks for that. Apologies if it's been posted
On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 09:59:14 AM Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 17:06 -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On 03/05/2013 04:41 PM, Michael Hall wrote:
> > > I think different segments of the community have different ideas of what
> > > "stable" means:
> > >
> > > Distro devs & pow
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 17:06 -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 04:41 PM, Michael Hall wrote:
> >
> > I think different segments of the community have different ideas of what
> > "stable" means:
> >
> > Distro devs & power users: "stable" == "things don't break"
> >
> > App devs, OEMS,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Hall wrote on 06/03/13 00:41:
>
> On 03/05/2013 06:49 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
>>
>> There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on
>> cadence of rolling releases:
>>
>> http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/comm
On 03/05/2013 07:47 PM, Robert Bruce Park wrote:
>
> That's how I've been interpreting this all along... 2-year release
> cadence, and the current dev release is simply declared "rolling"
> without any real changes. I don't see any issues with this: it's a
> huge reduction in SRU burden while allo
Hi Allison
On 06/03/2013 01:49, Allison Randal wrote:
There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence
of rolling releases:
Sad not to have made it, I had to be out at that moment. Thanks for the
summary!
But, the biggest was at the very end when System76 said that t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-03-05 03:49 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> If the "rolling releases" really aren't intended for end-users,
> then we should just drop the fiction, say the change is from a
> 6-month cadence to a 2-year cadence, and be done with it.
That's how I've
Robert Collins wrote:
>On 6 March 2013 17:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 08:07:36 PM Jono Bacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Scott Kitterman
>
>> wrote:
>>> > What percentage of code in the default install is covered by
>automated
>>> > tests?
>>> I am not
On 6 March 2013 17:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 08:07:36 PM Jono Bacon wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
>> > What percentage of code in the default install is covered by automated
>> > tests?
>> I am not sure, maybe the QA team can weig
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I agree. My main point is that such things are pre-requisites to a new
> release model. We don't have them, so we should get them before we change to
> something we're not ready to support.
My feeling here is that new processes and models
On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 08:07:36 PM Jono Bacon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > What percentage of code in the default install is covered by automated
> > tests?
> I am not sure, maybe the QA team can weigh in on this.
>
> > For a relatively small project, s
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> What percentage of code in the default install is covered by automated tests?
I am not sure, maybe the QA team can weigh in on this.
> For a relatively small project, such approaches are conceivable. For
> something the size of an install
On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:14:05 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 06, 2013, at 02:31 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> >A rolling release that isn't actually *always releasable* isn't a
> >rolling release.
>
> In a different forum, some folks were advocating for never actually doing
> what we'd tradit
On Mar 06, 2013, at 02:31 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>A rolling release that isn't actually *always releasable* isn't a
>rolling release.
In a different forum, some folks were advocating for never actually doing what
we'd traditionally call "a release" ever (of an upstream package). There'd be
no
On 6 March 2013 12:49, Allison Randal wrote:
> There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence
> of rolling releases:
>
> http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-release/
>
> But, the biggest was at the very end when System76 said that two yea
On 03/05/2013 04:41 PM, Michael Hall wrote:
>
> I think different segments of the community have different ideas of what
> "stable" means:
>
> Distro devs & power users: "stable" == "things don't break"
>
> App devs, OEMS, NTEU: "stable" == "things don't change"
>
>
> I think what we're going
On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 07:41:23 PM Michael Hall wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 06:49 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> > There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence
> > of rolling releases:
> >
> > http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-rel
> > eas
On 03/05/2013 06:49 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence
> of rolling releases:
>
> http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-release/
>
> But, the biggest was at the very end when System76 said that two y
There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence
of rolling releases:
http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-release/
But, the biggest was at the very end when System76 said that two years
is too long between releases for their customers, but
52 matches
Mail list logo
