[ubuntu-studio-devel] How would it be if we had fewer releases? Say, only one per year?

James Freer jessejazza3.uk at gmail.com
Tue Aug 26 22:36:12 UTC 2014

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Jimmy Sjölund wrote:
>> I'm not sure how backporting works, but if that would mean the users
>> would
>> have a LTS base and get newer applications I think that might be the best
>> way to go. Also with some documentation on how to preserve the "ordinary"
>> LTS versions if one doesn't want to upgrade applications.
> Backporting basically means uploading a package  (and possible
> dependencies), from the standard repository pocket of the newer release
> to the ubuntu-backports pocket of the target release. If the backports
> pocket is enabled in the apt sources file, the user will be able to
> update to the newer version of the package.
> In an ideal situation, the package has no dependencies that have to be
> backported too, in which case it is quite a simple job. But, many
> packages will require updating system libraries, etc, and in that case
> it may be more difficult to get the backport approved (I am told).
> We haven't yet done any backporting, so I at least have no experience in
> the procedure. One will need to test the backport in a PPA, just like
> with an SRU (Stable Release Update), before the upload can be approved.
> User POV https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports
> Dev POV https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports
>> In an ideal world we would do both. Backporting and have another version
>> every 6 months (or until Ubuntu changes the release schedule), but with
>> the
>> size of the team and shortness of time already that's for the future.
>> /Jimmy
> We don't really do that much extra work for the ISOs, so it's not like
> we should stop doing them because of the work load. But, perhaps, start
> focusing more on the LTS and start doing some serious backporting (which
> has been planned for a while, but no one has really put their teeth into
> it yet).
> We could put more emphasis on the LTS and recommend our users to install
> that over the latest release on our home page. And design the download
> page so that the LTS will seem like the logical first choice.

Ever since I started using Ubuntu I couldn't see the point of 6 month releases 
from the point of view of time. 6 months allows little time for development and 
testing. LTS is fine but in the second year the updates are more. Often there 
are updates rectifying problems which should have been dealt with before 
release... the negative of having a fixed release date.

Recently there has been suggestions that Ubuntu becomes rolling release 
following the Mint development. I've always thought that an annual release was 
about right. It gives enough time for full development and testing. My humble 


More information about the ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list