Timing of EOL notices

[Jamie Strandboge]

On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 11:21 -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> 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'. 

Heh, I forgot we *released* on 10.10.10. :P

Still, I think that having a policy in place such that we define 18
months as actually having the overlap built-in is preferable.

-- 
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/20120518/098a8a49/attachment.pgp>