Kubuntu 15.04

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 22:08:02 Harald Sitter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> 
wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:19:58 Harald Sitter wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org> 
wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:37:16AM +0000, Rick.Timmis wrote:
> >> >>    The Plasma 5 release dude is all for it and the Plasma 5 dude who's
> >> >>    sitting next to him is also all for it.  Nobody upstream has said
> >> >>    anything against it they're just disappointed that we'd be shipping
> >> >>    Plasma 5.2 and not 5.3 (out the week after Kubuntu 15.04).
> >> > 
> >> > Nobody seems to object, so I'm going to say we'll have Plasma 5 by
> >> > default
> >> > in Kubuntu 15.04.
> >> 
> >> Needs papers to be filed with TB to seek blanket SRU approval for KF5.
> >> Otherwise we need to work out a way to get newer frameworks into our
> >> released versions as to enable people to get bug fixes.
> > 
> > No.  We don't.
> > 
> > KF5 doesn't meet the criteria for a standing SRU exception and since the
> > last KF5 update broke Plasma 5, I think we've got no basis for claiming
> > upstream feature releases are sufficiently low risk that non-bugfix
> > releases are acceptable for post-release updates.
> 
> That was intentionally done because no distribution had adopted p5 as
> primary desktop in a release. At any rate I think a proposal should be
> made and then we can engage upstream on actual TB concerns and see
> where we get from there.
> 
> > This should be no surprise.  This was all discussed when upstream decided
> > not to provide support for current releases.  We'll have to cherrypick
> > and do our best with imprant bug fixes via the normal SRU process.
> 
> Since backporting is not going to happen but for the most obnoxiously
> terrible bugs that are being highlighted on IRC, perhaps it would be
> an opportune moment to evaluate the release procedure as a whole.
> Assuming we do not get to an agreement on a standing SRU exception
> we'd be pretty much delivering fixes through PPA releases only. It
> might be worth a consideration or two to simply transit to an entirely
> PPA based release delivery system as that is what people will have to
> use if they want fixes anyway. And that being said, another option
> would be to stop having non-LTS releases and instead do a PPA delivery
> against the latest LTS release (which due to the foundation
> backporting efforts might actually work pretty well for the most part)
> leaving more focused efforts to be directed at LTS maintenance and
> rolling the PPA forward.
> 
> My point being: selective backporting didn't fly in the past and isn't
> going to magically become easier or more appealing which makes this an
> undesirable scenario to end up with. In particular when there's plenty
> of options.

While a PPA based system is sort of OK for a tech preview like was done in 
14.10, it's not viable for an Ubuntu flavor.  

I agree it's very unfortunate that upstream gave up on supporting releases.

Scott K