On Thursday, October 30, 2014 22:08:02 Harald Sitter wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:19:58 Harald Sitter wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jonathan Riddell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:37:16AM +0000, Rick.Timmis wrote: > >> >> The Plasma 5 release dude is all for it and the Plasma 5 dude who's > >> >> sitting next to him is also all for it. Nobody upstream has said > >> >> anything against it they're just disappointed that we'd be shipping > >> >> Plasma 5.2 and not 5.3 (out the week after Kubuntu 15.04). > >> > > >> > Nobody seems to object, so I'm going to say we'll have Plasma 5 by > >> > default > >> > in Kubuntu 15.04. > >> > >> Needs papers to be filed with TB to seek blanket SRU approval for KF5. > >> Otherwise we need to work out a way to get newer frameworks into our > >> released versions as to enable people to get bug fixes. > > > > No. We don't. > > > > KF5 doesn't meet the criteria for a standing SRU exception and since the > > last KF5 update broke Plasma 5, I think we've got no basis for claiming > > upstream feature releases are sufficiently low risk that non-bugfix > > releases are acceptable for post-release updates. > > That was intentionally done because no distribution had adopted p5 as > primary desktop in a release. At any rate I think a proposal should be > made and then we can engage upstream on actual TB concerns and see > where we get from there. > > > This should be no surprise. This was all discussed when upstream decided > > not to provide support for current releases. We'll have to cherrypick > > and do our best with imprant bug fixes via the normal SRU process. > > Since backporting is not going to happen but for the most obnoxiously > terrible bugs that are being highlighted on IRC, perhaps it would be > an opportune moment to evaluate the release procedure as a whole. > Assuming we do not get to an agreement on a standing SRU exception > we'd be pretty much delivering fixes through PPA releases only. It > might be worth a consideration or two to simply transit to an entirely > PPA based release delivery system as that is what people will have to > use if they want fixes anyway. And that being said, another option > would be to stop having non-LTS releases and instead do a PPA delivery > against the latest LTS release (which due to the foundation > backporting efforts might actually work pretty well for the most part) > leaving more focused efforts to be directed at LTS maintenance and > rolling the PPA forward. > > My point being: selective backporting didn't fly in the past and isn't > going to magically become easier or more appealing which makes this an > undesirable scenario to end up with. In particular when there's plenty > of options.
While a PPA based system is sort of OK for a tech preview like was done in 14.10, it's not viable for an Ubuntu flavor. I agree it's very unfortunate that upstream gave up on supporting releases. Scott K -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
