Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Jamie Strandboge jamie at canonical.com
Thu Feb 28 19:52:24 UTC 2013


On 02/28/2013 01:02 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:26:08PM +0000, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:53:12AM -0800, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>>>    I'm excited about this announcement!
> 
>> I remember when Canonical did discussions in Ubuntu not just announcements
>> to it.
> 
> The subject of this thread is "Let's discuss".  You might know that Scott
> does not speak for Canonical, so him referring to it as an announcement does
> not make it one. ;-)
> 
> Of course, there are some elements of this that are entirely for Canonical
> to decide.  For instance, it's Canonical's decision whether or not it's
> going to fund security support for 6-monthly releases.  As ScottK mentions
> up-thread, it's doubtful whether anything can be called a "supported"
> release without security support; so if Canonical isn't going to provide
> that 18-month security support for interim releases, does it make sense to
> have those releases?  The latter is certainly something for the Ubuntu
> community to decide; for my part I think the "correct" answer is obvious,
> but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss it.
> 
> And for the avoidance of doubt, the calculus here is that providing security
> support for monthly snapshots, which will at any given time have no more
> than 1 month's delta from the devel release, will require substantially less
> manpower than providing security support for the interim releases.  So this
> isn't a matter of Canonical trying to say "we're willing to do the work this
> way but not that way" in order to force the community to take the decision
> that Canonical wants, it's a real question of reducing maintenance costs.
> If it turns out that monthly snapshots aren't the right way to support the
> community (of both developers and users), there's room for discussion of
> what the right way is.
> 

Well, to be clear, Rick's proposal saves on many levels, not just with
the security team, but Steve is not wrong in pointing out that the
security team is fully funded by Canonical and therefore Canonical is
allowed to define what receives official security support.

-- 
Jamie Strandboge                 http://www.ubuntu.com/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 899 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20130228/32494d94/attachment.pgp>


More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list