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 years > is too long between releases for their customers, but that they were > willing to at least *try* the new rolling releases. The reply was that > the rolling releases weren't expected to be stable enough to deliver to > customers. This surprised me, since "stability" is exactly the purpose > of rolling releases. > > 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. > > Yes, it has all the problems we've come to know-and-hate with stale > applications. So, either allow SRU exceptions for more applications like > we do for Firefox, or start really supporting Backports for the LTS. > > It's a waste of everyone's time and effort to rework the whole project > around talk of "rolling releases" when it's really just the same old > development release on a slower schedule. (Remember how we used to call > monthly images alphas and betas? That was ages ago, like 4 whole months.) > > Allison >
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 for in a rolling release is a release where things change, but don't break. While an LTS release is one where things neither change nor break. -- Michael Hall mhall...@ubuntu.com -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
