Unity desktop and maverick backport

[Martin Pitt]

Bonjour Didier,

Didier Roche [2010-11-18 19:25 +0100]:
> However, after some porting discussions and following the natty work
> I think we should perhaps consider not doing that because it's going
> to take quite some work for a moderated benefit and we would better
> spend those efforts in making natty rocking.

Thanks for the summary. I agree that we shouldn't put a lot of work
hours into these backports, but rather spend it to making our current
daily live CDs actually work and keep them working.

If someone wants to test unity, but isn't able to download a daily
image and use usb-creator, then we really don't want to ask the
same person to install the backported unity packages on a production
maverick system. I know for myself how painful the current packages
are, and during the development cycle we won't always be able to
guarantee that we don't trash the user's configuration. There is a lot
of fiddling that needs to happen for proper configuration migration.

So I actually think USB images will allow more people to test Unity
than Maverick backports.

Thanks,

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)