reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

Allison Randal allison at
Thu Mar 7 17:37:24 UTC 2013

On 03/07/2013 06:50 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> We've gone a long way to making backports easier, but I don't think
>> there's much low-hanging fruit left. We can provide more help, and
>> spread the word that backports can be easy. That's about it?
> Mostly what we need is (like many things) more manpower.  Backports are 
> certainly not ideal for the reasons you give, but if someone is not up to 
> dealing with the relatively modest technical requirements for getting a 
> backport approved then I think they are very much not the kind of people that 
> should be running the development release.

One possible alternate future out of many would be to take a fraction of
the Canonical-funded manpower that currently goes into the development
releases, and put it instead into Backports. Particularly, identifying a
set of packages that ordinary users are most likely to need backported
to the LTS and proactively keeping them up-to-date with the latest
versions of the packages. That won't cover every user's need, but it
provides a stair-step between "don't change anything" and "give me the
firehose of updates", more like "I really only care about the latest
version of Foo".


More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list