Perhaps it would be wise to open #Ubuntu-LTS?

[John Vivirito]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/08/2010 05:31 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote:
> On 8 June 2010 21:20, Jussi Kekkonen <tmt at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>
>> One question I want to ask at this point:
>> What issue does having -lts solve that improving #ubuntu wouldnt solve?
>> Or, in the other words, what need this -lts tries to fulfill that
>> normal support channels cannot even with improvement of some kind?
> 
> Well, if 90% of the talk in #Ubuntu is about non-lts versions, and I
> don't have any experience with any of the newer versions, then I see
> no reason to idle in #Ubuntu at all. It would only be a coincidence if
> I could answer the questions that pop up. In a pure lts channel,
> however, the messages would be answerable, so I might idle there and
> answer when I could.
> 
> Jo-Erlend Schinstad
> 
I have been spending more time on IRC than in the past month or so.
After seeing how many people join #ubuntu+1 for Lucid/Karmic help, if we
opened another channel they would just do the same thing to that channel.

> I agree fully. I just don't understand why that would be in contrast
> to having a specialized channel for desktop LTS-releases. I also don't
> understand the "splitting up #ubuntu" argument. There is nothing wrong
> with being on two channels at the same time. Actually, it's quite
> common.
> 
> Jo-Erlend
Most of the ops are not in anywhere near only 2 channels i am in ~33
channels at any given time. Not all are *buntu channels but since we
patrol(lack of a better word) we have to be in most if not all. Adding
another channel to our loads could be spreading us too thin, not sure
who it would be but for me i can not keep my eye on all the channels im in.

> Also, there are changes coming. At this particular point in time, for
> instance, we're changing the way Firefox is kept up to date. Hardy
> will receive the newest version of Firefox, instead of backporting
> changes as has been done in the past. Developers are trying to get
> people to test it so that we're sure no regressions are introduced.
> For Lucid, this isn't very important, since it already has a new
> version of Firefox. For Hardy, though, this is very important since
> going from 3.0 to 3.6 is a major upgrade. If we had a channel filled
> with Hardy desktop users, we could not only ask people to help test
> and discuss the consequences, but we could also help people if
> regressions should occur. More info on this specific issue:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-June/030860.html
Using Firefox or any other Mozilla products is not really the best way
to get your idea across most users will never see a difference other
than version type. We are still working on getting hardy -> Karmic our
of our security PPA and back. the reason why its taking so long as we
have a bunch of depends that we need to take care of first. We have
#ubuntu-mozillateam but we try not to get too many people in the channel
since we have our own mailing list for people to use. We are not just a
support channel but a dev channel as well so i do my best to keep up
with #ubuntu +1 ect...
Anyway we are working on it and hope to have this done this devel cycle.
Please keep in mind WE DID NOT decide this but rather Mozilla decided
this. It will be the same with Thunderbird Seamonkey xul stuff.




- -- 
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
    -- Metallica from Unforgiven III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkwQAIcACgkQ9Plt3HZNXhP8cACdHjD6SeyaBSIKx2iy58HfjUec
6FgAnjPjO5Tv6QgOYzOIq7r9SbE7uFnk
=I9BB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----