[Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS

[Jeremy Bicha]

On 15 October 2011 14:03, Michael Terry <michael.terry at canonical.com> wrote:
> I agree that 3.2 is not abnormally stable, nor that 3.4 will likely be
> abnormally unstable.  But each GNOME release does tend to focus as much on
> new features and rewrites as on bug fixes.  Features and code churns cause
> bugs too.  If they didn't, the number of GNOME bugs over time would go
> strictly down.

I think what you're saying is that 3.4 won't necessarily be any more
stable than 3.2 and I agree with that too.

> And of course, the Ubuntu desktop is more than just GNOME:  Unity, LightDM,
> Ubuntu One, Software Center, and hardware integration like multiple monitor
> support and bluetooth.  Those all would be able to get more stability
> attention too.
>
> Holding back would make 12.04 less exciting and fresh.  But part of this
> question is "What does an LTS means to us?"  To me, LTS releases are what I
> should suggest to friends and family across the chasm.  People that don't
> want to upgrade every 6 months.  People that place a higher value on things
> "just working" than having the latest and greatest.
>
> I hope that holding back could let us make 12.04 feel like 12.04.1, if you
> know what I mean.
>
> I agree that holding back would create a messaging problem, in both a "not
> fair to GNOME Shell" and a "not an exciting release" sense.  But first, I
> think we have to decide if it's a good engineering decision.

It's also a bit unfair in that GNOME developers might have considered
3.4 to be the Ubuntu LTS. One particular bug that would need to be
backported is that Vinagre's bookmarking is broken and the dev doesn't
want to push for the various freeze exceptions to fix it in the 3.2
series.

One problem with trying to target 3.2 is that we won't actually be
shipping 3.2 but part 3.2 / part 3.4 / part 3.2 with backported 3.4
features and fixes. And I don't think that is more stable than plain
3.4.1. For instance, I think we likely want g-c-c 3.4. And if we
delegate 3.3 to a PPA for "safe testing", then we won't get as many
testers as having 3.3 in the main archives.

> As I said above, I'm happy if an LTS is not exciting.  And I think the GNOME
> concerns are misplaced.  Projects need people looking after the "long tail"
> of stability as well as new features.  The bugs we fix make it back to
> GNOME.  That was actually what I liked best during my time at OEM Services (
> http://mterry.name/log/2010/09/15/what-i-do-in-oem-services/ ).

> I hope that a 3.4 PPA would be less broken, because it's not such a crazy
> transition as 3.0 was.

Yes, I agree that 3.0 was a big exception and we already have some 3.2
stuff in the GNOME3 PPA for Oneiric users. I haven't heard any
complaints yet but we've not advertised it either.

Jeremy