Release Structure Changes
david.wonderly at kubuntu.org
Fri Mar 15 13:18:57 UTC 2013
I don't see anywhere in the flavor guidlines where this would be an issue
I think that doing this would better allign us with KDE releases.
My vote is +1 on this proposial.
On Friday, March 15, 2013 08:57:43 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As a topic for today's call, I'd like to propose the following.
> The latest Ubuntu (the project) level proposal that is on the table is:
> I think we can generally live with this, however (as others have already
> commented on th TB list) I think the 7 month support period is too short.
> I would propose the Kubuntu (the project) position on this be something
> along the lines of the following:
> - The overall structure of retaining a regular cadence of normal and LTS
> releases every 6 months is essential to Kubuntu as delivering a release with
> the latest KDE release is a critical part of what makes Kubuntu what it is.
> This revised proposal supports our desired cadence.
> - We expect that most of our user base will run the current release. We
> expect that users of our LTS release want things to not change. We do not
> support required upgrades to platform components (this is different than the
> hardware enablement updates that are done in separate packages and only
> affect new installs - those we support - it should continue to be possible
> to install the LTS on newer hardware).
> - We believe that a one month overlap of support periods (the proposed 7
> month window) is insufficient. We would prefer a 9 month period so that
> users that want to wait until the final micro version of a KDE release is
> complete and integrated into the archive can upgrade at this point (as an
> example, KDE 4.10.5 is scheduled to release on July 2, 2013 so it would be
> nice to have 12.10 [if it had been released under the new paradigm]
> supported until the end of July). 8 months would still be significantly
> better than 7 if 9 is not supportable.
> - We support the idea of improving the quality and consistency of the
> development series, however, we are concerned that this can be taken too
> far. Our current practice is to wait until at least beta releases of the
> software we package to put them in the archive. We anticipate continuing
> this as waiting until later reduces the test exposure they get and
> compresses the packaging working into a small period before feature freeze.
> In general, the current proposal seems to meet the needs of Kubuntu, but we
> would like to discuss addressing these concerns. I think the Kubuntu
> Council should vote on a project position on this.
> Scott K
More information about the kubuntu-devel