Can we include HWE in the release version?

[Xen]

John Johansen schreef op 06-04-16 23:52:
> On 04/06/2016 02:32 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> LTS has 5 years of support.
>>
>> There are multiple kernels available with full 5 year support:
>> - original (from .0 original release & .1 release)
>> - next-lts (from a .5 point release)
>>
>> Intermediate releases backports:
>> - Available in .2; .3; .4
>> - Supported until .5 release which comes with next-LTS kernel
>> - Upgrade path is to the next LTS release, or to the .5 HWE stack
>>
>> We do send EOL announcements for the HWE kernels. I do not believe we
>> automatically upgrade people from them to the .5 / next-LTS kernel,
>> maybe we should. (or i am wrong, and we totally do it).
>> However in practice, people who use/care about HWE kernels upgrade to
>> the next HWE stack and/or next LTS release quite rapidly.
>>
>
> For those who opt-in sure, but there are people who buy machines with
> a point release installed. I don't think we can make that assumption
> for them.


It is rather arcane. When I myself was trying to find out how to
upgrade, I'm not sure I actually managed. The upgrade path makes sense,
but it is still a bit disconcerting because people are suddenly seeing
very short support dates.

To a user I feel that short support time is a lie, because under normal
circumstances a user/machine should update to that .5 release, hence not
having to deal with any short EOL at all. It is scary to see that thing
until you understand it, and then it is still scary.

Basically anyone upgrading to .2 is forced to continue upgrading to .5,
that is not really an issue, but it is a reality.

Perhaps a better system would simply be to not indicate any shortened
EOL, but to have support pages FOR the .2, .3 and .4 versions that
indicate at a certain point that hardware support requires an upgrade to .5

After all what does support mean for Ubuntu? Doesn't it mean new
updates? Are we talking customer contract-level support? Are we talking
repos? The repos stay the same right.

Saying .4 is no longer supported is a bit weird if there is an update to
.5 available; this is the support or might be the support people are
looking for.

So I think the whole definition of support is weird and queezy.

Also, if the point release only adds new hardware-related packages, then
you cannot really argue that the system as a whole is no longer
'supported' especially if the things that differ actually offer an
upgrade (even if they are not simple patches).

So when me as a casual user looks at "supported" I'm a bit queezy to
begin with. Then I start to think "Oh, they mean package updates
(security bugfixes)". Then I wonder, oh, it's fine if some kernel is
getting patched (or patches backported from newer kernels) but the rest
of the system remains the same (with point releases) -- so how
unsupported is it going to be?

I think if those HWE things only change the kernel and similar modules I
think it should be possible to change the one you want pretty easily.
People generally don't care about HWE either until their hardware
doesn't work. If the upgrade is easily available, no problem.

Personally normally I see no reason not to upgrade. In a typical
commercial OS the update would just be pushed to the user.

So basically what I am trying to say is:

"unsupported is a bit disingenious because the level of "nonsupport" is
rather low". Maybe better communication may solve any problems that
actually exist here...?