On 11 March 2013 23:12, Thierry Carrez <t...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Robert Collins wrote:
>> A - an archive that we place a high friction change process on, >> intended to eliminate regressions [the SRU] >> B - a logical name that users can associate with a /large/ bundle of >> changes. One can say 'Unity in Raring is fantastic' only because >> Raring is a thing. >> C - A set of APIs that work well together and which we commit to keep >> working for the duration of the release (except where it is infeasible >> [e.g. due to facebook dropping their support for the server side of an >> API]. >> D - A mostly unchanging environment. No surprises. >> [...] > > Today, it's also [E] an install media. I don't agree here. There is [E] an install media in the 'what is a release', but 'has unchanging install media' is not an important thing in any user story I have seen so far. Dailies *from the released archive* are fine *today*, if we chose to publish them. AFAICT there are no use cases or user expectations to fail that are tied to how often install media are updated vs the already covered aspects. > About LTS mode ('keep my behaviour unchanged') I suspect every n years > you'll have to create another LTS mode. For people who want their > behaviour unchanged but from a reasonably modern starting point. How do > you handle that ? It is just a combination of options - feature flag values, so you could name each LTS combination 'precise' etc. Or you could take a less orchestrated approach and just allow saying 'give me the default behaviour new installs had on <date>'. Then deprecation of support for a given thing is directly tied into that, and the UI can show people who are lagging warnings without needing to translate codenames. >> - Stop doing fixed releases altogether. > > Once we adopt the rest of your proposal, what would be the added cost of > actually still doing "releases", that could serve as reference points in > time and install media ? In my proposal you would not do reference points in time in the sense of a distinct series with frozen packages. So it is a question that doesn't apply. Install media should churn out daily (or more often if there is a need). > With a well-oiled release process, the cost is not high. And keeping > that logical name to describe a point in time has benefits: reference > install media, time-based cycle to focus development community, media > attention, LTS mode starting point, easy way to describe a set of APIs > and everything else you have in [B] above. > > If you think of a "release" not in term of upgrade and maintenance but > in terms of a development milestone and a breathing rhythm, I think the > benefits outweigh the costs. And it's certainly compatible with the rest > of your proposal. I don't understand what you mean by 'point in time' here. Could you expand on that? -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Cloud Services -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel