Strawman: Change the Ubuntu Release Cycle

[Jon]

On Jan 2, 2008 11:21 AM, Pär Lidén <par.liden at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, maybe there should be two different versions of the LTS release:
> One for the home-users where the applications are upgraded
> And another for corporate use, where they are not.
>
> /Pär
>
> 2008/1/1, Joel Bryan Juliano <joelbryan.juliano at gmail.com>:
>
> > On 12/31/07, Evan <eapache at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is a strawman, so feel free to rip it apart.
> > >
> > > While I generally like the current Ubuntu release cycle, I find it has
> > a few
> > > problems:
> > >
> > > Forcing LTS users to make do with software that is 2 or 3 major
> > versions
> > > out-of-date is just wrong. I understand that the focus is on stable
> > software
> > > rather than cutting-edge, but some of the stuff in 6.06 is just plain
> > > obsolete, forcing people to upgrade to a non-LTS to get programs that
> > do
> > > what they need.
> >
> > At first, people will decide what version of Ubuntu they will use
> > based on what they need, and many companies will mostly be comfortable
> > with an LTS along with it's support benefits than a less documented
> > bleeding edge release. I know someone who is still using Hoary because
> > of the low system requirements and speed comparison to newer Ubuntu
> > release, and many companies are still using Red Hat 9 or 7.3. Use
> > cases varies that's why we still have an active 2.4 kernel
> > development.
> >
> > > I find that the 6 months between major releases is just a touch too
> > short
> > > for the developers to make significant changes and do a proper test
> > cycle.
> > > Their are no 'service pack cds' meaning that any bug which makes it
> > into the
> > > final release stays there forever. This has led to what is basically a
> >
> > > never-ending early adopters penalty.
> > > Here's my proposal. While it isn't perfect, I think it fixes the
> > issues
> > > mentioned above.
> > >
> >
> > I agree at some point that 6 months is relatively short, I think
> > sacrificing features over time is what most people dislike, but
> > Freezes are a necessity in an open source software distribution.
> > There's a need to constantly highlight deferred/prospective specs,
> > that rigorously be reminded and discussed over time to ensure that
> > those specs made tentative changes until such status be reached that
> > they'll be good to go.
> >
>
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of an LTS?

I was under the impression that an LTS can be created and indeed supported
because it is kept at a known state. If arbitrary application upgrades are
allowed by end users, I would think that would lead to inconsistent systems
that would be harder to support. Perhaps even no different from the current
release version if I understand you correctly.

Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20080102/0b53c6b2/attachment.html>