LTS and release methodology

Evan eapache at
Mon Jul 7 18:17:00 UTC 2008

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Luke L <lukehasnoname at> wrote:

> On 7/7/08, Evan <eapache at> wrote:
> > I would propose a compromise between the current LTS pattern and the
> > proposed bug-fix only pattern: maintain the current upstream merge, but
> add
> > no new packages. That way newer software is still in the repositories
> (and
> > thus supported upstream for the longest time possible), but the more
> > intrepid changes (ex: pulseaudio) are dropped. Users get a system that is
> > still up-to-date, and developers get much more time to fix bugs.
> >
> > Decisions would have to be made on an individual basis for packages that
> are
> > officially discontinued upstream in favour of newer implementations.
> This sounds like my second suggestion, I think we are on the same page
> here. LTS needs more attention to stability than is giving to STS.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Your second suggestion still drops the
upstream merge. I think that the merge is necessary, but that we shouldn't
add new packages like pulse-audio for an LTS.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list