@smcv, thanks for the comment that is really useful info. I didn't
realize that debian had already split the document portal, this is good
to know.

I had some further discussions with people about the situation
https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/gvFBxNFzwN/ (it's quite long). But
interesting points from it are fedora and arch are also on 0.10, with
there being some slight confusion about development vs stable series
again.


I agree that it would be much easier to maintain 0.10.X as you said it has a 
slower pace with less frequent and smaller changes. (also Ubuntu would be 
in-sync with debian then? which would be useful for both).

I wonder if the route to go down is to use 0.10.X, provide point release
updates for that. Then if it is possible to move series (as stated above
we'd probably need approval), jump to the next "stable" series, eg
0.12.X. (even if this is via the backports route).


However there were some interesting discussions, in the pastebin i linked, if 
0.11.X is truely a development branch for 0.12.X could we treat this as Ubuntu 
having 0.12-alpha and then release to 0.12.0 etc (but as you stated the updates 
could be huge, frequent and increases the amount to maintain) - so probably not 
a good idea.


I think overall 0.10.X is probably the simpler route to go down, for the 
reasons smcv has stated above. Are there any other opinions? @Ken do you have 
any input?

I would also like to get some confirmation on if we would be able to
ship 0.12.X at a later stage via SRU/backports or similar to bionic.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382

Title:
  please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for
  bionic

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to