Karl - grub2 and ext2/ext3/ext4
klarsen1 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 10 15:12:25 UTC 2010
On 08/10/2010 08:52 AM, C de-Avillez wrote:
> 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).
I think that a choice between grub and grub2 since I have not
heard of grub3 :-)
Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
Key ID = 3951B48D
More information about the ubuntu-users