On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:00:44PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 09:31:42AM +0200, Didier Roche wrote: > > Unfortunately, like many projects, there is a constant tension between the > > request for new features backport (adsys, as being an enterprise product, > > only really makes sense in a LTS context) and bug fixes. Most of the new > > features are developed due to industry requirements, which are: > > - evolution of their own security practices (for instance, certificates > > support) > > - request for other platform supports (winbind in addition to > > already-existing sssd) > > So on one hand, enterprise users want to use the LTS because they don't > want feature changes. On the other hand, they demand new features so > they do want change. > > How does this fit with our stable release policies with respect to > adsys? Is it possible that one enterprise wants to use the current > version of adsys in a stable release and doesn't want it to change > because that's what they validated, and another enterprise wants a new > feature and requires it to be updated in a stable release? > > If that conflict does arise, how are we to resolve it, keeping in mind > the need to maintain the reputation of our LTS as a stable platform that > generally and very deliberately doesn't do feature changes? > > Could these cases, for example, be served better by a snap, the > backports pocket or a PPA instead?
Let me propose another way to limit issues: Backport the adsys in the latest stable release to LTS series, and keep that as a release series, while developing new stuff in stable. Basically that's what I'm trying to do with grub too (except we currently binary copy the grub binaries rather than do rebuilds per series, but different story). You can also split this up further and have an adsys that just receives security updates, and an "hwe" like rolling adsys, think like kernels. I think the backports pocket could work, but it may be easier to use an adsys-rolling package or something so users don't have to enable "scary" repositories. Also backports and PPAs don't really have the same guarantees as -updates, when that is something that customers want. -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Ubuntu-release mailing list Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
