Timing of EOL notices

[Jamie Strandboge]

On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 10:33 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:21:51AM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> 
> > 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).
> 
> In the UDS discussions around this, it was pointed out that we don't
> recommend LTS->LTS upgrades until the first point release, which means that
> for 12.04 w/ 12.10 backport, you don't get offered an LTS upgrade until a
> full three months after 12.10 EOL.  So the expected upgrade path will be
> 12.04 w/ 12.10 backport -> 12.04 w/ 14.04 backport -> 14.04; users will have
> to do the upgrade in two steps, but at least there will only be one kernel
> upgrade to deal with.
> 
True and I mentioned in the session the possibility of actually having
the LTS+1 release be 21 months for this reason, but the messaging is
weird and I think that is not ideal. When Ubuntu offers the LTS upgrade
I think is a different matter because users still have a viable option
(even if it isn't presented in Update Manager) without security support
gaps by upgrading to a supported release without having to go through
the extra kernel step. In this way, they either go LTS to LTS or stay on
an LTS with the next backported stack. Personally, I think this is
acceptable.

-- 
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/20120518/37e23573/attachment.pgp>