Am Montag, den 07.07.2008, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Matt Zimmerman: > On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 03:27:46PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Do we need to reconsider how we approach getting to a release? For an LTS > > release should we just add 2 months on the schedule? It was done > > officially for Dapper and I wonder if we didn't do it informally for Hardy? > > For 8.04, a deliberate effort was made by Canonical to continue > stabilization in response to real-world testing after the 8.04 release. In > practice, many issues which affect users are only discovered when end users > begin to upgrade and use the new release on a daily basis, and for this > release, we prepared a comprehensive response to this feedback.
That was exactly my argument (to myself) when I thought of answering to the original poster. Yes, Ubuntu 8.04 was kind of a low point for me, because (while it was stable), there were many regressions and bugs. Sometimes I wished the release had been put back to 8.06. The problem is that even with all the alpha/beta/rc testing available to Ubuntu, the most tests are only done when the release is out. So, better to release and fix afterwards... *really* focussing on the bugfixing though, as has been done, *not* focussing on the next release immediately.
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
