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 things) more manpower. Backports are > certainly not ideal for the reasons you give, but if someone is not up to > dealing with the relatively modest technical requirements for getting a > backport approved then I think they are very much not the kind of people that > should be running the development release.
One possible alternate future out of many would be to take a fraction of the Canonical-funded manpower that currently goes into the development releases, and put it instead into Backports. Particularly, identifying a set of packages that ordinary users are most likely to need backported to the LTS and proactively keeping them up-to-date with the latest versions of the packages. That won't cover every user's need, but it provides a stair-step between "don't change anything" and "give me the firehose of updates", more like "I really only care about the latest version of Foo". Allison -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
