-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rick Spencer wrote on 28/02/13 20:41: > ... > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas > > ... >> So, I'm all in favor of having two-yearly releases. But for the >> same reasons as six-monthly releases are bad, monthly snapshots >> and/or a rolling release would be much worse -- unless we are >> careful to communicate that they are for contributors only, not >> for end users or ISVs. > > I would put "enthusiasts" in the category of potential users. > There are people who will set the dial to much fresher software if > they can, even if it comes with costs and even if they don't > consider themselves "contributors".
That's a worst-case scenario for Ubuntu as a platform. The type of users most likely to install applications, not doing so, because they're using an Ubuntu version that changes too often for ISVs to bother with. > ... >> I don't understand why you are proposing monthly snapshots at >> all. Can you elaborate? > > 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 cadences for updates, daily and monthly. As above, that seems like something we'd want to discourage. Even so, it is already possible in R, without snapshots. It takes two clicks: 1. When Software Updater appears, expand "Details of updates". 2. Uncheck the checkbox next to "Other updates", leaving "Security updates" checked. (These groupings appear only if any of the updates are security updates.) You can later install non-security updates weekly, or fortnightly, or monthly, or whenever you please. We don't need to provide snapshots for any of those. At most, we'd tweak Software Sources and Software Updater, to (in effect) automate the unchecking of the checkbox. Are there other reasons for monthly snapshots, or would that be a reasonable substitute? > ... > >> A download page that offers a choice between the LTS and a >> rolling release would be exactly as horrid as one that offers the >> choice between the LTS and a six-monthly release. > > I would expect the stock download page to *only* point to the last > LTS. Excellent. > ... > > I think that crash reports is a useful and valid measure of > robustness, and your measures do point to the fact that Quality is > journey, not a destination. We should certainly continue to focus > on decreasing crashes, increasing performance, increasing security, > etc... all the things that make software robust for users. > > ... Certainly robustness is much more than just crashes, but errors.ubuntu.com already records more than just crashes. (And yes, we take that into account when comparing releases.) If there are other measurable grounds for claiming one release is more robust than another, then let's measure them. Cheers - -- mpt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEv0lMACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecpjVQCfcAKHwHQgn0khxLheMsqqTF4v yEsAnirH34kXD579YVqf0ERofBUw9TSG =jeKK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
