LTS-to-LTS Cycle Freezes: Transitions

[Ted Gould]

On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 13:53 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.

Sure.  I guess the reason I put that in is that my understanding is that
the transition for applications isn't very difficult.  But, I have no
first hand experience there.  I would expect individual deprecations to
be approved by the Tech Board, these were meant more as guidance to what
I was thinking.

> In any case Main/Universe is really an internal Canonical issue.  It's not one 
> the community can really weigh in on.

Hmm, my understanding was that it was something in the Ubuntu policies
and procedures.  I think it does effect things like derivatives, no?
Anyone on the RT can approve MIRs, right?

Regardless of whether it's a Canonical thing or not, I think it's a good
way to express a general transition away from a particular technology
without just flat removing it without any notice at a particular point.
But, if that's the only sticking point, I'll be pretty thrilled :-)

		--Ted

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20120225/df15fb53/attachment.pgp>