Strawman: Change the Ubuntu Release Cycle

Pär Lidén par.liden at
Wed Jan 2 15:58:23 UTC 2008

2008/1/2, Jon <me at>:
> On Jan 2, 2008 11:21 AM, Pär Lidén <par.liden at> 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.
> >
> 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.

Well, I was thinking along the lines of Evans, with core being kept stable,
and just the applications being upgraded. And I was not thinking about
arbitrary upgrades by the end user, but rather that programs such as Firefox
and Openoffice could be updated to newer versions. But on a second thought,
you are probably right that this could be solved better by having a more
active backport-team.

This wouldn't however still really solve my wish about updating hardware
support post-release. But I think that to be able to backport hardware
support in a good way, much things outside of Ubuntus control probably has
to change. Maybe the kernel release process would have to change to like it
was before (x.y.z, y even = stable, y odd = development). Probably it would
also be easier to accomplish this if as much as possible of the hardware
support was pushed to user-space. But this is maybe a different discussion
than the original subject.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list