Kubuntu 15.04

[Harald Sitter]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, it wouldn't be the same workflow as in the TP. The way I would
imagine it is simply having a release PPA where usually the archive
would be in our workflows. Alas, I don't like PPA-only delivery as
that would make it all the harder for archive software to use kf5 and
for us to make sure that kf5 (in a ppa) doesn't break something in the
archive. It is an option though.

HS