Is a 16.04 alpha 2 needed?

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Walter,

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:42:07PM -0800, Walter Lapchynski wrote:
> I think it's worthwhile doing alphas, especially for an LTS version.

Could you elaborate what value you see that you're getting out of these
alphas, that couldn't be achieved more effectively by e.g. automated install
testing against the daily images?  To me it looks very much like momentum:
we've always done alphas so we should continue to do alphas.  Maybe I'm
missing something, and if I am then let's by all means proceed with alpha 2
and give the flavor teams what they need.  But I'd also like to challenge
folks to think about whether this is still the case, or if there are other
things we could be doing instead that would provide better value to the
flavors for the time invested.

> So Lubuntu would like to participate.  I'd certainly love not to have to
> sign up for Release Tasks, but if I must…

It doesn't seem like there's so much value to the flavors that people want
to sign up for this in advance. ;)  Isn't this somewhat telling in itself?

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/attachments/20160125/c810b183/attachment.pgp>