they would not be really necessary, but that doesnt mean that you cant take a snapshot every X months and give it a codename, number or something
Printable View
Personally I like a 6 month release cycle, but i can see sense in a monthly release. What I think should happen is a compromise between the current plan and the proposed plan. have a "minor" release every month with and a "major" release every 6 months (standard and LTS releases every 6 months and 2 years respectfully)
The current proposed plan wouldn't work well (IMO) for companies like System76 (who use that time to test the next release on there hardware) The minor release would either have no name or a package name and the major release would continue with naming
so like 11.11 might be Oneiric Ocelot - Cub, 11.12 would be OO - Chaser, etc etc, and then 12.04 would be the Major release and called P.P and the cycle continues.
Thats my 2 cents
Dm
I like the Arch rolling release system. Some hate it, that's why all OSs don't use it.
I personally don't care what upgrade system Ubuntu uses, though I do think that Canonical need to find a way to handle projects that aren't ready in the roughly 13 weeks of dev' time between Ubuntu releases.
The dumping of unfinished projects in Ubuntu releases is costly as users go elsewhere & it is giving Ubuntu a bad name.
Canonical need to come up with another system for offering incentives to the dev's who need to spend longer than 13 weeks on a project to make it ready for general consumption.
Most Ubuntu users don't appreciate that between the LTS releases there is testing going on. This effects some users more than others. & I know, LTS aren't without troubles on their release though they are usually tidied up fairly quickly. Though regressions keep on happening.
This 10.10 UDS keynote by Mark Shuttleworth, puts the development of Unity in perspective. I'm not adding it here to bring up any discussion on Unity, please take it elsewhere. It is to show what the plan is, & it shows how the Ubuntu releases between LTS are for testing & that as far as Canonical's plans for Ubuntu go, Ubuntu is still in its very early stages of development:
http://www.archive.org/details/Mark_...veloper_Summit
An upgrade is not as much of a big deal as it is made out to be. Sure it is a lot of software and a lot can potentially go wrong, but packages from Debian are designed to upgrade smoothly and retain configuration files. I always have had success in Ubuntu/Debian upgrades.
Obviously problems do exist for folks though, but I know how to 'pre-upgrade' my system, cleaning potentially conflicting junk beforehand. Also I always upgrade running from a single user mode console, so no services are running to conflict with the upgrade.
Rolling + LTS is a good idea imo. Canonical should only support LTS, and all the rolling releases could become community supported only.
ISOs for LTS only, those who want to enter rolling, should do so starting from an LTS installation, or perhaps just update the minimal install ISOs between LTS.
Well, I think a monthly release schedule would make providing support on this forum a bit harder. I also think the more interesting part of his blog post are the insights in to how bonuses and pay are tied to getting features in before the freeze. I think changing that policy would result in a system that is, overall, better for 'human beings' to use.
Also, a pedant moment.... Debian unstable is always called 'sid' -- the release will be called wheezy.