There were a few things that concerned me in today's session on cadence of rolling releases:
http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-release/ But, the biggest was at the very end when System76 said that two years is too long between releases for their customers, but that they were willing to at least *try* the new rolling releases. The reply was that the rolling releases weren't expected to be stable enough to deliver to customers. This surprised me, since "stability" is exactly the purpose of rolling releases. If the "rolling releases" really aren't intended for end-users, then we should just drop the fiction, say the change is from a 6-month cadence to a 2-year cadence, and be done with it. Yes, it has all the problems we've come to know-and-hate with stale applications. So, either allow SRU exceptions for more applications like we do for Firefox, or start really supporting Backports for the LTS. It's a waste of everyone's time and effort to rework the whole project around talk of "rolling releases" when it's really just the same old development release on a slower schedule. (Remember how we used to call monthly images alphas and betas? That was ages ago, like 4 whole months.) Allison -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
