Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] "Support Plan" request challenge (WAS: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification)
Speaking as a user for some time, on multiple systems, of Ubuntu Studio, I can attest that the 20.04 version was extremely stable during the time I used it. I am currently using for somewhat different purposes Xubuntu 22.04, and this has been a bit less stable for me than Studio 20.04. I'm continuing to use it, but I've run into some minor issues that seem to have been taken care of by updates. The difference between that and Studio is that I didn't run into that kind of problem with Studio. Experience - ignore this portion unless it's useful I used Ubuntu Studio on three workstations and two laptops, most of the time using 20.04. I switched to Xubuntu since moving to a new window manager was a bit much for me at this time. Two workstations dual boot LINUX and MS Windows 10 x64; my wife uses it professionally as a psychologist and we both use it to play a game with friends. My first computer was an IBM 740 terminal connected to the Caltech 7040/7090 number cruncher; my first personal computer was an IMSAI 8080/ADM5 combination used primarily for text processing. My experience with UNIX is a bit weird; I started with a Tandy 16B about 40 years ago running XENIX-68K which eventually supported an online archive of "netnews", especially mod.sources (to the extent that Telebit and USR modems can be considered to be "online"). That system eventually moved to Open Desktop and then to Microport before being retired. I decided to retread and bought a Sun 4/110 workstation and used that, plus the XENIX experience, to get a job at the Indiana University Computer Science department as their PC specialist (my job before that time used MS-DOS). The principal job was to assist staff with using PC's in a UNIX (SunOS/IRIS) environment which eventually resulted in the department purchasing a license of an MS Windows based XWindows package for secretarial staff to use for documents written in TeX. At IU I learned about 386BSD and have used that, and it's versions, since its release. My home server currently uses FreeBSD v 13, mainly due to its familiarity. At work I continued to use MS Windows in its various versions until retirement. After retirement I decided to start migrating clients to Ubuntu, especially Studio, since we have 2 or 3 desktops and 2 laptops and licensing costs were prohibitive once I left the university. My other hobby is recording and performing live music which accounts for the interest in Studio. Thanks for the work. Mike Squires -- Michael L. Squires, Ph.D., M.P.A. michael.leslie.squi...@gmail.com Member, Bloomington Friends Meeting (Quaker) Member, Board of Directors, Arts Alliance Known in the SCA as Alan Culross, KSCA, OP, CB, etc. "Michael Leslie Squires" on Facebook Web: www.siralan.org UN*X at home since 1986 - ..!ncoast!sir-alan!mikes 812-369-5232 (cell) 812-333-6564 (home) -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] "Support Plan" request challenge (WAS: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification)
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:20:53AM -0600, Aaron Rainbolt wrote: > SRUs in packages used by flavors (including flavor-specific packages) are > also common. Speaking as a member of the SRU Team as well, I don't actually see evidence of this. There has been a run of SRUs right at the time of the mantic release, related to release upgrades; and there was also a recent Lubuntu SRU to lunar to fix *notifications* for release upgrades; but I can't think of any other examples in the past few years. This might be because it happened that all of them were processed by other members of the SRU Team, but that's statistically unlikely. From my perspective, SRUs of core packages in main are much more common. Can you point to something I've missed showing that flavor package SRUs are happening? (I think this is very relevant to the question of LTS qualification, because demonstrating a track record of active maintenance of the stable release of a flavor goes a long way to establishing that the flavor team is delivering something that meets users' needs for an LTS.) -- 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 https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] "Support Plan" request challenge (WAS: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification)
Hey Erich,
I'm a relatively new member of the TB and not familiar with how flavors
were granted LTS status in the past but let me share my perspective on
what you wrote.
Le 24/11/2023 à 07:02, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit :
That said, this seems way too detailed for a repeated LTS. I will
certainly follow this for Edubuntu since it's returning after 10
years, but for Ubuntu Studio, and any other flavor with a prior LTS in
the past two years, this should be a much lower bar.
Checking
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2016-April/002213.html
what I see in this example is 7 bullet points and less than 20 lines of
text (wrapped at 80chars), that doesn't seem a long or unachievable task
to me. Could you be a specifics on what exactly is making the bar too
high in your opinion?
To me it feels like it would have taken you less time to write those
details than those emails...
That said, I'm not standing-down from this challenge, but revising it:
I challenge the Technical Board to revisit and more clearly define
exactly what "Flavor's support plan presented to Tech Board and
approved; support planshould indicate period of time if beyond 18
months (3yrs or 5yr), keycontacts, and setting expectations as to
level of support." means with specifics, as the wording is too vague.
Furthermore, the policy wording is clearly outdated ("18 months"), has
been around too long without revision (2011) and the policy itself
should probably be reworked in collaboration with the Flavor Leads as
is the spirit of Ubuntu.
The page could be probably be a bit more specific on what is asked
indeed. I think it's a fair ask for the TB to review the current wording
and policy and see if we believe changes are needed. We do review
mailing list activity and open questions during our IRC meetings so we
should be able to pick it up next time
Cheers,
Sébastien Bacher
--
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification
Hi Lukasz, I'm going to use Xubuntu's one-paragraph example for this as it seems reasonable and was approved by Steve, which sets a precedent. Our support plan is limited to the Ubuntu Studio package set which is generally updates and bugfixes to the multimedia packages we include, as well as our own developed utilities (Ubuntu Studio Installer, Ubuntu Studio Audio Configuration, etc.). We also assist Kubuntu with bugfixes from time to time for the desktop environment and KDE application packages as needed. Most packages come from Debian. We also backport many packages to the backports repository for inclusion there. I hope this is closer to what you're looking for and we can finally settle this. Erich On 11/23/23 09:53, Lukasz Zemczak wrote: Hello Erich! I will be handling your LTS re-qualification from the TB side for Ubuntu Studio. Thank you for providing information about your team and contacts, as well as regarding the length of the LTS support. I think we almost have everything to make a decision here. Per the requirements listed here [1], the only thing missing from the 'support plan' POV would be setting the expectations regarding the level of support Ubuntu Studio would provide for the 3 years. Could we have like a wiki page or a page on ubuntustudio outlining this? And mentioning the support contacts and where to file bugs. Thanks! Cheers, On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 17:16, Erich Eickmeyer wrote: Good morning Technical Board, On behalf of Ubuntu Studio, we'd like to re-qualifiy for LTS for 3 years for 24.04. Our team is https://launchpad.net/~ubuntustudio-dev and I am the primary contact with rosco2 as backup. Thanks, Erich -- Erich Eickmeyer Project Leader - Ubuntu Studio Technical Lead - Edubuntu -- technical-board mailing list technical-bo...@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board On behalf of the Technical Board, -- Erich Eickmeyer Project Leader - Ubuntu Studio Technical Lead - Edubuntu -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] "Support Plan" request challenge (WAS: Ubuntu Studio LTS Re-Qualification)
Hi Seb,
On 11/24/23 06:40, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Hey Erich,
I'm a relatively new member of the TB and not familiar with how
flavors were granted LTS status in the past but let me share my
perspective on what you wrote.
Le 24/11/2023 à 07:02, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit :
That said, this seems way too detailed for a repeated LTS. I will
certainly follow this for Edubuntu since it's returning after 10
years, but for Ubuntu Studio, and any other flavor with a prior LTS
in the past two years, this should be a much lower bar.
Checking
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2016-April/002213.html
what I see in this example is 7 bullet points and less than 20 lines
of text (wrapped at 80chars), that doesn't seem a long or unachievable
task to me. Could you be a specifics on what exactly is making the bar
too high in your opinion?
To me it feels like it would have taken you less time to write those
details than those emails...
I wasn't made aware of that email until Steve's reply, so I had no
example to work from. Furthermore, this wasn't just about me as this
affects all flavors. I've spoken to others who have been blindsided by
this requirement that have been release managers for their respective
flavors for as long as I have.
That said, I'm not standing-down from this challenge, but revising
it: I challenge the Technical Board to revisit and more clearly
define exactly what "Flavor's support plan presented to Tech Board
and approved; support planshould indicate period of time if beyond 18
months (3yrs or 5yr), keycontacts, and setting expectations as to
level of support." means with specifics, as the wording is too vague.
Furthermore, the policy wording is clearly outdated ("18 months"),
has been around too long without revision (2011) and the policy
itself should probably be reworked in collaboration with the Flavor
Leads as is the spirit of Ubuntu.
The page could be probably be a bit more specific on what is asked
indeed. I think it's a fair ask for the TB to review the current
wording and policy and see if we believe changes are needed. We do
review mailing list activity and open questions during our IRC
meetings so we should be able to pick it up next time
This is essentially what I was looking for, but since I get ignored so
often on these matters, I felt it needed further attention. And, indeed,
it does affect volunteerism. While I do have a technical mind, I'm
trained in the ways of supporting volunteers and I bleed community, so I
will do whatever it takes to protect volunteers, not simply including
myself.
With that, I thank you for the consideration on this matter.
--
Erich Eickmeyer
Project Leader - Ubuntu Studio
Technical Lead - Edubuntu
--
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
