Hello Oliver,

On 2018-04-09 03:30, Oliver Grawert wrote:
well, apart from actual installer fixes, your users should get all
these fixes through package updates anyway ... 

Right, which is another point for getting rid of these extra milestones, in my opinion.

One thing that the other pro/con responses did not cover yet but that
should not be underestimated is the promotional aspect of milestones

You typically get press coverage for such pre-releases and will likely
attract more testers.

Not really, actually. In my experience, testers are present when there is an occasion to test them, regardless of putting a name to it or releasing an ISO. I could see your point if my proposal was to get rid of the milestones entirely with no replacements, but in this case, having the testing week once a month would attract press coverage as well.

Why? Because milestones in all reality are just a fancy name to slap on an ISO that will most likely be stale the next day. You then get people installing from these ISOs and potentially even reporting old bugs. The unfortunate reality of this press coverage is that you could pick an ISO any day of the month and call it "beta," and just because it has that name on it means that people will install it because of the appeal of the name. Despite the positive press that comes from the associated announcements (that can always be made regardless, which is what Lubuntu has started doing[1]), in a technical sense, I would even consider it *bad* for people to install using these ISOs.

The coordinated testing weeks would allow for there still to be positive press coverage (and maybe announcements resulting from cross-team collaboration during these times) while not having the downsides of a blessed image when the archive isn't in a decently stable state.

[1] https://lubuntu.me/category/newsletter/

Simon Quigley
tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC
5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8
C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4

Ubuntu-release mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 

Reply via email to