hi, On Do, 2013-02-28 at 20:14 +0000, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > 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. > the problem here is currently that we only keep the last three images around for space reasons. if a fatal installer bug goes unnoticed for three days you don't have any working install media. for this case it is good to have a last known good image around (we were exactly bitten by such a case right before the recent desktop team sprint where nexus7 images were discovered to be nonfunctional on Friday evening before the sprint started).
while i appreciate that we want to have each and every image installable
all the time, it is unrealistic to expect 100% coverage here. if we
don't want to have monthly milestones that get a manual sign off from
testers, we need to keep a larger amount (1 week, 10 days) of images
around to make sure to cover such cases.
ciao
oli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
