Broken session idling/power management in Karmic

Alexander H Deriziotis deriziotis at
Wed Oct 28 17:55:53 UTC 2009

> If we don't have the manpower right now then perhaps we should consider
> extending the beta or release candidate stage by a week in order to give
> the manpower we have enough time to solve the most significant problems?

Once again, I'm no developer, but I'm quite confident a week wouldn't nearly
be enough.

Not only that, but I'm certain that the regressions listed in thie original
mail isn't the only one that would be considered serious. Multiply it
tenfold at least I'd say.

> I 100% agree. I like the concept of a six-month release cycle, but if it
> means shipping with bugs of this visibility and magnitude then there is
> something wrong. If we are going to ship with bugs like this, then we
> in all honesty call it a stable release. Maybe calling the 6-month
> 'major development milestones' would be more appropriate, and leave the
> 'stable release' moniker for LTS releases only.

I think on a certain level, this is what Mark Shuttleworth is trying to do
by trying to sync release cycles with upstream projects.

Take the recent announcement by Debian that they will regularly freeze their
stable releases on a regular cycle, and Ubuntu's efforts to sync their LTS
relase with the Debian stable release.

This should hopefully significantly increase the quality of the software in
each LTS release.

However, without a more stringent QA process, Ubuntu aren't making any
guarantees to stop these types of regressions, not even in LTS releases. But
that's OK, they're still doing absolutely incredible work.

Maybe that's something for a downstream project to do anyway. Perhaps Dell's
updated Ubuntu version that they bundle on their netbooks.

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

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list