That's similar to Mint's path, as they are are switching to basing only on LTS releases with backports at least through 16.04. This even though they will still do a release of their own every 6 months.
On 8/26/2014 at 12:32 PM, "Kaj Ailomaa" <[email protected]> wrote: > >I was thinking today about the possibility of not releasing a new >ISO >every 6 months, and instead focus more on the LTS releases. For >example, >we could release only once every year, or once every two years, >even. > >But, what would this mean for Ubuntu Studio? > >* Users would still be able to upgrade to a newer release, just >not be >able to do a fresh install from ISO (since Ubuntu Studio is in >fact just >another flavor of Ubuntu) >* We would still need to keep our packages up to date for every >Ubuntu >vanilla release (so, in fact, we don't actually save much work) >* Instead of QA testing our ISO, we would need to QA test the >upgrade - >as that would be the primary way to get the most recent release. >This >could very well be more problematic than doing a fresh >installation. >* We could focus more on backporting packages to the LTS release, >though >this works best for packages that don't need the latest versions >of its >dependencies. The kernel will be backported from now on, so a LTS >user >will always have access to the latest kernel. >* In the end, the change might be more psychological, telling the >user >to stick with their LTS releases. > >Any opinions? > >-- >ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list >[email protected] >Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
