Hi Tech Board,<div><br></div><div>I just wanted to send a friendly reminder for some comments on this. It was sent during UDS, so i'm sure it could have easily gotten lost in an e-mail backlog.</div><div><br></div><div>
Thanks!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Mario Limonciello <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:superm1@ubuntu.com" target="_blank">superm1@ubuntu.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Hi Tech Board,<div><br></div><div>Kate Steward recommended that I should reach out to the tech board on behalf of the Mythbuntu team to help get agreement around the plan we want to follow for our releases going forward. I believe we're a bit different than the rest of the Ubuntu based flavors in that our users demand much less churn with their setups as they are generally HTPCs. We have done some analysis and consequently found that a majority of our user base gravitate toward LTS releases. </div>
<div><br></div><div>We currently provide PPA's with stable builds of upstream fixes and new releases across an intersection of Ubuntu releases as dictated by our PPA page (<a href="http://www.mythbuntu.org/repos" target="_blank">www.mythbuntu.org/repos</a>). Upstream has integrated (opt in) statistics for usage, and LTS dominates (OS tab of <a href="http://smolt.mythtv.org/static/stats/stats.html" target="_blank">http://smolt.mythtv.org/static/stats/stats.html</a>).</div>
<div><br></div><div>So with all of that said, our team all agrees that it makes more sense to only ship ISO images of LTS releases. We can continue to provide packages that work with the archive and misc transitions as the archive evolves during interim releases. But not creating ISO images at the new interim releases, we would help cater to what our users are asking for while being able to reduce our effort with every cycle in fixing every problem related to the ISO creation. </div>
<div><br></div><div>We'd still like to spin updated point releases of the LTS releases, but no new features would be introduced during those point releases. That way we can still provide updates for the users introducing new hardware that they need the support from backported kernels and software stack versions. So we'll still be signed up for testing those respins, it should be a lot less effort than all the bugs that get introduced with interim releases and need to be fixed constantly throughout the cycle.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What does the tech board think of this proposal?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div></div><div> </div></div>-- <br>Mario Limonciello<br></div></div><a href="mailto:superm1@gmail.com" target="_blank">superm1@gmail.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Mario Limonciello<br><a href="mailto:superm1@gmail.com" target="_blank">superm1@gmail.com</a><br>
</div>