LTS cadence

[Mark Shuttleworth]

Hi Soren

I've taken the liberty of cc'ing the technical board and including your
full email, as I think it's really a TB + Canonical matter.

I agree that a committed two year cadence is optimal, not just for
Ubuntu but for the whole network of upstreams and downstreams and
solution providers and users that depend on it. We've put a lot of
thought and effort into it, and have converged on this as a balance
between hardware, software, end-user and developer interests, that
happens to fit with the solar cycle (ruling out half-year periods).

Apart from the stutter of 6.06 LTS (my fault at the time) we have been
rigorous in the cadence. So we could just declare it to be fixed, since
everyone who thinks of the cadence approach and especially LTS
meta-cycles refers to us, and would probably defer and fit in with that
leadership. It's not an ego thing, just a momentum thing.

That said, to have maximum effect, we would want to be aligned with
other distros. Ideally, SUSE and Debian would come on board. Debian has
recently committed to a time-based freeze (which is what's really
important) but have yet to demonstrate the ability to execute, and
unfortunately, they picked a time 180 degrees out of phase with Ubuntu,
so we cannot help them. That may address itself naturally, as it's not
inconceivable that Debian takes a few tries to nail the time freeze, and
along the way, one might line up that we could adjust ourselves to and
help out.

I think, if we had an agreement with Debian that would stand, to a two
year cycle of freezes and releases, that would be sufficient to great
widespread gravity and bring in many other projects. I think we should
be willing to shift our own LTS six months in either direction, once
only, to achieve that. The challenge is that Debian is unable to deliver
a binding institutional agreement. Individuals in Ubuntu can collaborate
with individuals in Debian, but no leader is able to deliver a binding
agreement. We would be held accountable to our half of a bargain as an
institution, but Debian would not. That makes it difficult for us to
make any adjustment to our cycle on the back of a promise, until there
is some demonstrated institutional ability in Debian to freeze on a
cadence and make agreements.

With all of that said, I would be supportive of a firmer statement on
our LTS cadence, and invitation to other projects to align accordingly.

Mark

On 31/10/11 14:06, Soren Hansen wrote:
> Hi, Mark.
>
> I was delighted to hear you calling out already now that 14.04 will be
> our next LTS.
>
> I have a proposal to make, but I'm honestly not sure if if it's a CC
> or TB decision, which is why I'm writing to you directly.
>
> I'd like to propose that we codify our LTS cadence. All the phrasing
> I've been able to find in official or semi-official places says that
> LTS's will /usually/ be two years apart. I'd like for that to change.
>
> We often refer to our dependable release cycle as a "selling" point
> for Ubuntu. It's an important part of what makes Ubuntu Ubuntu, and it
> lets upstreams and downstreams alike plan many months in advance for
> upgrades and align their own release cycles. I think it will be
> equally useful for these stakeholders to have a dependable LTS
> cadence, so that they can make longer term plans to align with our
> LTS.
>
> What this technically will mean is that the TB or CC say that LTS's
> will be two years apart, so 12.04 is an LTS, 14.04 will be an LTS,
> 16.04 will be an LTS, etc. and it will take a TB or CC ruling to
> deviate from this plan.
>