Is a 16.04 alpha 2 needed?

[flocculant at gmx.co.uk]

On 27/01/16 08:07, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Thanks for the discussion, folks!
>
> [snip]
> Ok, do you know where this has stalled?
Not completely sure tbh. There was discussion on the QA list starting in 
July, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-quality/2015-July/006064.html

Max Brustkern (?) was looking , and had got somewhere by late last year, 
since then not heard anything. Nick Skaggs might be more current (cc'ing 
him in)
> It's true that Canonical is only providing the infrastructure for automated
> testing of Ubuntu images.  But it's my understanding that the infrastructure
> should be replicable by others who want to also run these tests for other
> flavors.
As far as infrastructure went I believe we were looking at a cloud 
instance funded by the Community Fund.
>
> [snip]
> It's only a guarantee if flavors choose to exercise the option of running
> automated tests on their images before promotion to "current".  As it's been
> mentioned above that automated image testing for flavors has stalled
> somewhere, that seems like a good place to focus our attention to save
> everyone time in the long run.
>
>> So please leave us the possibility to be able to publish tested and
>> somewhat guaranteed-to-work images during development, even if not all of
>> us make use of it all the time.
> I would much rather help you have the guarantee that every image published
> as "current" is tested and works :)
>
I'd love to have that - in the meantime though we don't, so I would 
rather we get the option until such time as we do.

I know for instance (as a very general statement) that while images work 
properly in hardware and kvm - apparently what the autotesting uses - in 
something like virtualbox - which a lot of people use - we see problems 
each cycle. Perhaps those are caused *by* VBox - I can't answer that, 
regardless of the cause those issues remain.