LTS and release methodology

Pär Lidén par.liden at
Tue Jul 8 14:13:23 UTC 2008

2008/7/8 Matt Zimmerman <mdz at>:

> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:00:00PM -0500, Luke L wrote:
> > Ceteris paribus, regressions should have a higher priority than normal
> > bugs. I totally agree.
> It's hard to argue with that, but again, I have to look at this
> pragmatically.  It is very rarely possible to tell just by looking at a bug
> whether it is a regression or not, and collecting this information can be
> very time-consuming ("please boot from an older live CD and try it, then we
> can decide on the importance of your bug").

Yes, it might be tricky in some cases to figure this out, but quite often
people say in the LP bugs "This worked in Feisty/Gutsy/Dapper". Maybe there
could be some flag in LP to mark a bug as a regression? And those bugs would
be required to get much more attention. It doesn't have to be more
complicated than so. Perhaps also an LTS release would be delayed if it has
too many regressions? (I suppose a zero-tolerance to regressions would be
too hard, and delaying the release for too long, but the kernel won't
release a new version until all important regressions are fixed. IMHO,
something similar should be the case for the whole Ubuntu releases also.)

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

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list