On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Well, it wouldn't be the same workflow as in the TP. The way I would imagine it is simply having a release PPA where usually the archive would be in our workflows. Alas, I don't like PPA-only delivery as that would make it all the harder for archive software to use kf5 and for us to make sure that kf5 (in a ppa) doesn't break something in the archive. It is an option though. HS -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
