Follow Up from "Let's Discuss Interim Releases"

Ernst Sjöstrand ernstp at
Fri Mar 8 20:58:37 UTC 2013

Having only LTS and "the rolling release", ie. precise and raring for
example, would cut down on the number of distributions any maintainer of a
3:rd party repository would need to support.
Right now if you have a PPA you need to maintain it for precise and quantal
and raring and then ssssss etc.
Let's say you put some really nice packages in your quantal PPA, but then
forget to update it for a while. It's such a waste that they're now "only"
available for the previous interim release, and not the current interim
release that everyone who's running interim releases will upgrade to anyway.
So my vote is for Rolling Releases!

Another way to handle this issue would be to have monthly releases, but
give them all the same distribution name, ie. raring. Since the old ones
wouldn't be supported I think that would make sense anyway and could be
pretty nice too.


PS. I like the BTRFS idea!

2013/3/8 Rick Spencer <rick.spencer at>

> As others pointed out "no change" is the default choice. However, if
> someone wants to capture our current release cadence and support model
> to the wiki, I don't see why there would be any objection to that.
> Cheers, Rick
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at>
> wrote:
> > Rick Spencer <rick.spencer at> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>There has been a lot of discussion and impact around the strawman
> >>proposal for changing our release cadence that I sent last Thursday.
> >>There was a misconception that the proposal was a decision that I was
> >>masking as a call for discussion. I want to reassure everyone that I
> >>really did mean it as a discussion. I feel passionately that we need
> >>to change and innovate in this area, but a change like this cannot
> >>succeed, or in fact be made, without discussion in the community and
> >>proper governance.
> >>
> >>Discussion of this topic on the mailing list and at UDS this week was
> >>wide ranging. There were a lot of divergent opinions and ideas. The
> >>discussion seems to have resulted in roughly three different forms of
> >>proposals.
> >>
> >>1. Move to a rolling release similar to what I proposed in the
> >>original straw man.
> >>2. Continue to release interim releases but only support them until
> >>roughly the next interim release 6 months later.
> >>3. Dramatically increase the rate of our releases to, say, once per
> >>month.
> >>
> >>I've attempted to capture the essence of these proposals (and
> >>associated sub-proposals) along with a structure for points and
> >>counterpoints in wiki format to support honing and organizing. They
> >>are currently stubs, so will need detailed content and continued
> >>honing, but the wiki format invites collaboration on that honing.
> >>
> >>See:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I'd like to invite everyone who is interested to get their input into
> >>these pages by March 18th (or thereabouts). Then I'd like to work with
> >>interested people to select what we consider the best proposal to take
> >>to the technical board for guidance.
> >>
> >>Part of the straw man proposal was to convert 13.04 into a Rolling
> >>Release in order to allow us to go faster on the converged OS starting
> >>immediately. Given the work that is left to achieve a proper proposal
> >>for the tech board, I don't foresee such a proposal being completed in
> >>time to make such a radical change to 13.04.
> >
> > Maintaining the current cadence should also be one of the options.
> >
> > Scott K
> >
> >
> > --
> > ubuntu-devel mailing list
> > ubuntu-devel at
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list