Avoiding fragmentation with a rolling release

Oliver Grawert ogra at ubuntu.com
Thu Feb 28 23:39:58 UTC 2013

On Do, 2013-02-28 at 20:14 +0000, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:

> So, I'm all in favor of having two-yearly releases. But for the same
> reasons as six-monthly releases are bad, monthly snapshots and/or a
> rolling release would be much worse -- unless we are careful to
> communicate that they are for contributors only, not for end users or
> ISVs.
the problem here is currently that we only keep the last three images
around for space reasons. 
if a fatal installer bug goes unnoticed for three days you don't have
any working install media. for this case it is good to have a last known
good image around (we were exactly bitten by such a case right before
the recent desktop team sprint where nexus7 images were discovered to be
nonfunctional on Friday evening before the sprint started).

while i appreciate that we want to have each and every image installable
all the time, it is unrealistic to expect 100% coverage here. if we
don't want to have monthly milestones that get a manual sign off from
testers, we need to keep a larger amount (1 week, 10 days) of images
around to make sure to cover such cases.

-------------- 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/20130301/82d36966/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list