Timing of EOL notices

[Jamie Strandboge]

On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 10:58 -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> Hi Kate,
> 
> I took an action item at UDS to discuss with the release team the timing
> of the EOL notices. Because we are currently backporting the kernel (and
> eventually X stack) to earlier releases, the timing of the EOL notice
> has an effect on the support for people running an LTS with backported
> kernel/X packages. Because the security, kernel and desktop teams will
> stop performing security updates past the EOL, it the EOL happens
> earlier than the release day, there can be a gap in support.
> 
> A specific example: 10.10 was EOLd in early April this year. 10.04 LTS
> users with a backported maverick kernel therefore no longer received
> security updates for this kernel after the EOL announcement (naturally),
> but these users did not have a viable upgrade path to maintain security
> support. They couldn't go to 10.10 (it was just made EOL) and 12.04 LTS
> was not released yet. I suggest the EOL announcement go out on the
> Friday or Monday after release such that there is at least a day of
> overlap. This is still within the spirit of 18 months support, even if
> it is actually off be a few days.
> 

I forgot to mention (Micah pointed it out to me off-list) but had
thought about the fact that people could upgrade to the next stack, so
the 10.04 LTS users could have gone to the 11.04 backport for the time
between when 10.10 was EOL and 12.04 LTS released. However, I would
argue this is not ideal as it requires users to go through the pain of a
kernel transition prior to upgrading to the next LTS (which could
involve significant QA for enterprises) (ie 10.04 with 10.10 backport ->
10.04 with 11.04 backport -> 12.04 when all they really need it 10.04
with 10.10 backport -> 12.04). Obviously for people who want to stay on
the LTS with the backported stack, they should just go to the next one
(11.04 stack on 10.04 LTS in this example).

I might also put my 2 cents in on what an EOL arriving 'on time'
actually means. I don't know where that is defined but it seemed like it
was 2400 days (18 * 30), but this is not 18 months. I would argue that
making the EOL announcement to be the same day of the month minus one
day but 18 months later is 'on time' (eg, if 10.10 was release on Oct 26
2010, then EOL would happen on April 25 of 2012). While I actually
propose to delay a few days for overlap, I feel this is more in the
spirit of 18 months and actually closer to being 'on time'. 

-- 
Jamie Strandboge             | http://www.canonical.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/attachments/20120518/a0736ba0/attachment.pgp>