Karl - grub2 and ext2/ext3/ext4
hggdh2 at ubuntu.com
Tue Aug 10 14:52:19 UTC 2010
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:07:30 -0400
J <dreadpiratejeff at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:03, Robert P. J. Day
> <rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > is it actually true that an LTS release will *necessarily* be more
> > reliable out of the box? i just thought it meant that it would
> > have a longer life span. is there a more rigourous Q/A process
> > for LTS releases?
> FWIW, I DO have the knowledge...
> Your first statement is not true... at least, not in the sense of
> "necessarily." The effort is made to test the hell out of EVERY
> Ubuntu release and hopefully send the best thing out the door that's
> possible. Sometimes this is successful, sometimes not so much, but
> it's always a best effort balancing act.
> LTS means exactly what you thought it meant. Long Term Support. LTS
> releases don't change much between point releases (e.g. the upcoming
> 10.04.1) and get updates for a lot longer than the regular releases.
> However, the QA process is the same for both.
One more point to what Jeff stated: we are more conservative on which
new versions will make it to an LTS: say package X reached release for
version Y.Z a few weeks before feature freeze for an LTS. If this new
release changes radically the behaviour of package X (like, say,
Gnome 2 to Gnome 3, or KDE 3.x to KDE 4.x), we may decide to keep on
the (now) previous release for stability -- we would not have time to
fully test this new version and features.
This is -- again for example -- what happened on 10.04 LTS: we kept
with Gnome 2 (even if offering Gnome 3 as an option).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ubuntu-users