Strawman: Change the Ubuntu Release Cycle

Pär Lidén par.liden at gmail.com
Wed Jan 2 15:21:14 GMT 2008


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 out-of-date is just wrong.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.
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20080102/d87e8beb/attachment.htm 


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list