LTS-to-LTS Cycle Freezes: Transitions
Scott Kitterman
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Sat Feb 25 18:53:21 UTC 2012
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:10:02 PM Ted Gould wrote:
> As we're hitting beta freeze for this LTS I think it's a good time to
> talk about something that gets discussed from time to time, but we
> should commit to for this round of the meta-cycle. That is quite simply
> having a process for things that aren't in the 6m release cycle, but
> instead on the LTS meta-cycle. Obviously this can't be decided on this
> mailing list, it'll require a UDS discussion and tech board approval,
> but I think it's good to start here.
>
> As an concrete example of something that could be done on this meta
> cycle I think we should start talking about technology transitions.
> Things that we don't want to carry, or transitions that we want to
> encourage. And also things that we're willing to take the pain of
> dealing with, either by dropping packages we love or by committing
> development effort to that transition. I image many of these will be
> hard for various communities. But, I think this is part of Ubuntu's
> charter of making opinionated choices for continued inclusion.
>
> Here is what I'm proposing as a schedule for a transition:
>
> LTS + 1: No MIRs approved using the old tech
> LTS + 2: Old tech not allowed in main, packages demoted at FF
> LTS + 3: Only bug fixes allowed to packages, no syncs, no updates
> except to migrate to the new tech.
> LTS + 4: Packages dropped at FF that use the old tech
> ^ Probably the next LTS
>
> For the Precise + 1LTS release I'll start to propose the following
> transitions:
>
> Python 2.x -> Python 3
> GConf -> GSettings
> GTK2 -> GTK3
> Qt4 -> Qt5
>
> I think there should be an exception process that would get release team
> approval like a standard freeze. But, in general, this should be
> discouraged (like all freeze exceptions are).
>
> Any suggestions before I try to formalize this further?
Since Qt5 isn't even released yet, I think that may be premature.
In any case Main/Universe is really an internal Canonical issue. It's not one
the community can really weigh in on.
Scott K
More information about the ubuntu-devel
mailing list