Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
228 messages Options
1234 ... 12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Rick Spencer-2
= tl;dr =
Ubuntu has an amazing opportunity in the next 7-8 months to deliver a Phone OS that will be widely adopted by users and industry while also putting into place the foundation for a truly converged OS.

To succeed at this we will need both velocity and agility. Therefore, I am starting a discussion about dropping non-LTS releases and move to a rolling release plus LTS releases right now.

= Role of the LTS Releases =
Many users prefer their OS does not change very often. We have a great system in place for these users. Every 2 years Ubuntu release an LTS and users can ride that LTS for the whole support period. Since the LTS comes out every 2 years, they can set a 2 year cadence of updates if they want to stay "up to date" with LTS releases. I think this 2 year cadence works out very well for these users. So, this proposal maintains those LTS releases as anchors for those users.

= Role of the Interim Releases =
But what about the 3 releases we do every six months in between (what I call the "interim releases")? Who are they for? Why do we invest so much in supporting multiple interim releases at a time?

I think the value of the interim releases has run its course:
* Customers (people who pay Canonical and others to support Ubuntu) like OEMs and Enterprises have all adopted an LTS to LTS cadence.
* Many community members recommend only LTS releases to new users because of its longevity and stability, but the interim releases cause confusion about what is the “right” version for someone to install.
* As Scott James Remnant pointed out some time ago, the six month cadence causes features to be either rushed, or to have to wait for six months to be released (along with other problems). (http://netsplit.com/2011/09/08/new-ubuntu-release-process/)
* Due to Daily Quality efforts, the development release is now usable every day, so enthusiasts and community members don’t have to wait for a stable release to get the latest software and can participate more fully in the development of Ubuntu
* Supporting interim releases is a costly distraction from future development, a cost in both time and attention.

= Ubuntu NG =
In the meantime, with Ubuntu Touch, the Phone, the Tablet, and convergence of these device experiences with the Desktop, we are in the process of inventing what is essentially a next generation Ubuntu. There will be lots of new code written and code integrated from new sources to accomplish this. The 13.04 Desktop would not have any of this new code, and therefore will be "old" before it is even released.

Therefore, I think we should keep LTS releases, but starting now, stop doing interim releases and start a rolling release.

More clearly, I think we should:
* Stop making interim releases.
* Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
* Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support only until the next snapshot

That means users could choose:
* The LTS release
* The rolling release updated daily or as frequently as desired
* The rolling release updated at least monthly

= Benefits of Moving to a Rolling Release =
A rolling release instead of interim releases will benefit users, community members, and developers.

== For Users ==
Users who prefer the LTS releases will be unaffected by this change, at least directly. For users who prefer more up to date software, the rolling release will truly provide the latest and greatest software that they are looking for, but without the 6 month wait for a new release. Developers won’t be under pressure to rush a feature in before the release deadline, so users will be receiving more complete software when they do get updates.

== For Community ==
The community will benefit from the simplified model. They will be able to recommend either the LTS or the rolling release, and the users of each will be clear. People who need to provide support may find their lives dramatically simplified, because on any one day, there will essentially be 2 releases with clearly differentiated user bases instead of their user base being distributed across a minimum of 3 supported releases. For example, on any one day, an ISV typically would only have to worry about the LTS releases and the current rolling release, instead of 11.10, 12.04, 12.10 and the current development releases, Raring.

== For Core/MOTU Developers ==
For the people who are actually making Ubuntu (the people on this thread I hope) there are some clear wins as well.

1. Only 2 releases to support, the LTS and the rolling releases. That means fewer SRUs to worry about, and only for LTS releases. More time and attention to focus on what we are building instead of what we had built.
2. Features land when they are ready, not earlier or later.
3. No one will get stuck supporting "old" software that is not part of an LTS release.

= Why Now? =
There are two answers for this.
1. Because of Convergence
2. Because we can

== Convergence ==
The vision before us is feasible, and we can do it if we are smart about focusing our resources on the future.  We can make a Free and Open Source OS that uses the same code base to power phones, tablets, desktops, workstations, servers, clouds, and services in clouds! We can ensure a place for Free and Open Source software in the future where people are running desktops off their phones, televisions off their tablets, and all the other combinations that convergence will bring us. We *can* do this.

But to do this, we need to continue quickly down the path that we have started on, making Ubuntu the best client OS on any form factor. Winning our place among the new industry leaders delivering devices to end users will take copious focus and effort on our part. We can't afford to let our focus and effort to get siphoned off into releasing and supporting software that is not taking us closer to that future.

== Because we Can ==
Daily Quality means that developers can ensure their components are stable and useful before they upload, and our processes protect us from most mistakes these days. The result is that 13.04 has been as robust a release over the last many weeks as 12.10 was when we delivered. We have achieved rolling release quality in our development practices, so we can capitalize on this capability now.

= Next Steps =
Such a change needs to be discussed in the Ubuntu community. Therefore, I asked my team to put together a strawman proposal for how such moving to a monthly cadence with rolling release might work. I will be discussing a rough outline of  this proposal on Friday 27th Feb at 6pm UTC / 10am Pacific / 1pm EST at http://www.ubuntuonair.com. Then we can talk specifics next week at UDS.

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Rick Spencer-2
ftr, I didn't mean Friday the 27th, I mean Friday the 1st, tomorrow ;)


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Rick Spencer <[hidden email]> wrote:
= tl;dr =
Ubuntu has an amazing opportunity in the next 7-8 months to deliver a Phone OS that will be widely adopted by users and industry while also putting into place the foundation for a truly converged OS.

To succeed at this we will need both velocity and agility. Therefore, I am starting a discussion about dropping non-LTS releases and move to a rolling release plus LTS releases right now.

= Role of the LTS Releases =
Many users prefer their OS does not change very often. We have a great system in place for these users. Every 2 years Ubuntu release an LTS and users can ride that LTS for the whole support period. Since the LTS comes out every 2 years, they can set a 2 year cadence of updates if they want to stay "up to date" with LTS releases. I think this 2 year cadence works out very well for these users. So, this proposal maintains those LTS releases as anchors for those users.

= Role of the Interim Releases =
But what about the 3 releases we do every six months in between (what I call the "interim releases")? Who are they for? Why do we invest so much in supporting multiple interim releases at a time?

I think the value of the interim releases has run its course:
* Customers (people who pay Canonical and others to support Ubuntu) like OEMs and Enterprises have all adopted an LTS to LTS cadence.
* Many community members recommend only LTS releases to new users because of its longevity and stability, but the interim releases cause confusion about what is the “right” version for someone to install.
* As Scott James Remnant pointed out some time ago, the six month cadence causes features to be either rushed, or to have to wait for six months to be released (along with other problems). (http://netsplit.com/2011/09/08/new-ubuntu-release-process/)
* Due to Daily Quality efforts, the development release is now usable every day, so enthusiasts and community members don’t have to wait for a stable release to get the latest software and can participate more fully in the development of Ubuntu
* Supporting interim releases is a costly distraction from future development, a cost in both time and attention.

= Ubuntu NG =
In the meantime, with Ubuntu Touch, the Phone, the Tablet, and convergence of these device experiences with the Desktop, we are in the process of inventing what is essentially a next generation Ubuntu. There will be lots of new code written and code integrated from new sources to accomplish this. The 13.04 Desktop would not have any of this new code, and therefore will be "old" before it is even released.

Therefore, I think we should keep LTS releases, but starting now, stop doing interim releases and start a rolling release.

More clearly, I think we should:
* Stop making interim releases.
* Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
* Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support only until the next snapshot

That means users could choose:
* The LTS release
* The rolling release updated daily or as frequently as desired
* The rolling release updated at least monthly

= Benefits of Moving to a Rolling Release =
A rolling release instead of interim releases will benefit users, community members, and developers.

== For Users ==
Users who prefer the LTS releases will be unaffected by this change, at least directly. For users who prefer more up to date software, the rolling release will truly provide the latest and greatest software that they are looking for, but without the 6 month wait for a new release. Developers won’t be under pressure to rush a feature in before the release deadline, so users will be receiving more complete software when they do get updates.

== For Community ==
The community will benefit from the simplified model. They will be able to recommend either the LTS or the rolling release, and the users of each will be clear. People who need to provide support may find their lives dramatically simplified, because on any one day, there will essentially be 2 releases with clearly differentiated user bases instead of their user base being distributed across a minimum of 3 supported releases. For example, on any one day, an ISV typically would only have to worry about the LTS releases and the current rolling release, instead of 11.10, 12.04, 12.10 and the current development releases, Raring.

== For Core/MOTU Developers ==
For the people who are actually making Ubuntu (the people on this thread I hope) there are some clear wins as well.

1. Only 2 releases to support, the LTS and the rolling releases. That means fewer SRUs to worry about, and only for LTS releases. More time and attention to focus on what we are building instead of what we had built.
2. Features land when they are ready, not earlier or later.
3. No one will get stuck supporting "old" software that is not part of an LTS release.

= Why Now? =
There are two answers for this.
1. Because of Convergence
2. Because we can

== Convergence ==
The vision before us is feasible, and we can do it if we are smart about focusing our resources on the future.  We can make a Free and Open Source OS that uses the same code base to power phones, tablets, desktops, workstations, servers, clouds, and services in clouds! We can ensure a place for Free and Open Source software in the future where people are running desktops off their phones, televisions off their tablets, and all the other combinations that convergence will bring us. We *can* do this.

But to do this, we need to continue quickly down the path that we have started on, making Ubuntu the best client OS on any form factor. Winning our place among the new industry leaders delivering devices to end users will take copious focus and effort on our part. We can't afford to let our focus and effort to get siphoned off into releasing and supporting software that is not taking us closer to that future.

== Because we Can ==
Daily Quality means that developers can ensure their components are stable and useful before they upload, and our processes protect us from most mistakes these days. The result is that 13.04 has been as robust a release over the last many weeks as 12.10 was when we delivered. We have achieved rolling release quality in our development practices, so we can capitalize on this capability now.

= Next Steps =
Such a change needs to be discussed in the Ubuntu community. Therefore, I asked my team to put together a strawman proposal for how such moving to a monthly cadence with rolling release might work. I will be discussing a rough outline of  this proposal on Friday 27th Feb at 6pm UTC / 10am Pacific / 1pm EST at http://www.ubuntuonair.com. Then we can talk specifics next week at UDS.


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Martin Pitt-4
In reply to this post by Rick Spencer-2
Hello Rick,

Rick Spencer [2013-02-28  7:31 -0800]:
> Therefore, I think we should keep LTS releases, but starting now, stop
> doing interim releases and start a rolling release.

FWIW, I'm all for this. The past two cycles have demonstrated a
tremendous increase in daily quality, and starting a RR now will only
motivate everyone to get even better.

I feel that the 6 months of planning ahead with the feature freeze
(which got violated countless times anyway), plus the usual
uncertainty and fuzz of work items that were thrown out "in the heat
of the moment" at an UDS discussion has shown their limits, so a
monthly cadence of "snapshots" plus a more dynamic planning sound
promising. We'll see how well it will actually work.

> More clearly, I think we should:
>  * Stop making interim releases.

This entails also dropping freezes for the non-LTS cycles, or would we
still have freeze cycles during the monthly cadence?

>  * Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.

Big +1. I'm particularly looking forward to integrating our automatic
package tests with britney.

I also think we need to integrate our daily image smoketests better to
avoid publishing a built image on cdimage.u.c. as /current if it fails
the tests. /current should always point to the last one which is
working IMHO.

>  * Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support
> only until the next snapshot

This is the main point where I have doubts and questions:

 * What does "support" mean for the monthly snapshots? Hopefully not
   security updates, SRUs, and backports? That would ruin pretty much
   all the savings that we do from dropping the interim releases.

 * What is the purpose of these snapshots, i. e. who would use them?
   If all our published daily images are good enough to install, boot,
   and get you into a desktop, and we wouldn't do significantly more
   QA on the "monthly" ones anyway, what makes these images special?

> = Why Now? =
> There are two answers for this.
>  1. Because of Convergence
>  2. Because we can

You forgot the One True Reason for "Why Now?": I'm sure that it was
never meant to be a Raring Ringtail, but always a Rolling Release! We
couldn't do it at any other point in time.

I'm looking forward to this. I'm sure there will be rough edges, but
let's try this.

Thanks!

Martin

--
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Security Support - Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Scott Kitterman-3
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 05:09:26 PM Martin Pitt wrote:
> >  * Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support
> >
> > only until the next snapshot
>
> This is the main point where I have doubts and questions:
>
>  * What does "support" mean for the monthly snapshots? Hopefully not
>    security updates, SRUs, and backports? That would ruin pretty much
>    all the savings that we do from dropping the interim releases.

I think it's critical too.  Currently there is no security support in the
development series.  I have a hard time envisioning something with no support
from the Ubuntu security team as a release of any kind.  It's certainly not
something I could recommend who isn't involved in Ubuntu development run on a
system they care about.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Evan Dandrea-3
In reply to this post by Rick Spencer-2
Wow!

We've come a long way in the past few years. Let me just say I could
not be more excited by this.

There are undoubtably challenges ahead if we are to ensure the level
of quality people have come to expect from Ubuntu, but I take comfort
in knowing that after lots of hard work by everyone laying the
foundation for this, we're at the perfect time to make it happen. More
importantly, we have the talent to make it happen. With that, I'm
really excited by the work Colin Watson and Brian Murray are doing on
phased updates:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PhasedUpdates
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ErrorTracker/PhasedUpdates

I've also been really thankful for the work that Martin Pitt,
Jean-Baptiste Lallement, and the QA team have been doing to increase
our code coverage with unit tests that are run against every upload.
The list of running jobs in Jenkins keeps getting longer and longer:

https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/view/Raring/view/AutoPkgTest/

I'm also confident that the data we have in the Ubuntu Error Tracker
will provide the source of continuous measurement needed to ensure
that with each day we're only increasing in quality from the last LTS
released.

Tom Demarco was right: you cannot control what you cannot measure.
This change of process puts measurement right to the forefront. It's
going to ensure that Ubuntu is going to reach levels of stability not
seen in the old six month cycle.

Lets build the tools to make an ever-more dependable Ubuntu a reality.

To the future! :)

- Ev

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Security Support - Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Marc Deslauriers-3
In reply to this post by Scott Kitterman-3
On 13-02-28 11:23 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 05:09:26 PM Martin Pitt wrote:
>>>  * Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support
>>>
>>> only until the next snapshot
>>
>> This is the main point where I have doubts and questions:
>>
>>  * What does "support" mean for the monthly snapshots? Hopefully not
>>    security updates, SRUs, and backports? That would ruin pretty much
>>    all the savings that we do from dropping the interim releases.
>
> I think it's critical too.  Currently there is no security support in the
> development series.  I have a hard time envisioning something with no support
> from the Ubuntu security team as a release of any kind.  It's certainly not
> something I could recommend who isn't involved in Ubuntu development run on a
> system they care about.

The security team does support the development release. When we push
updates for the stable release, our policy is to either sync, merge or
fix the packages in the dev release also.

We will also be pushing urgent security updates to monthly snapshot users.

Marc.



--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Jorge O. Castro-3
In reply to this post by Evan Dandrea-3
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Evan Dandrea
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PhasedUpdates
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ErrorTracker/PhasedUpdates

+1 for this, this makes the entire idea much more robust and would let
us at least use data to measure the end user updates.

How do we handle things like large changes that might affect things
outside of the archive, like Steam, etc.? Surely those sorts of
projects wouldn't want to deal with that level of change happening
monthly.

Or do we make a more firm statement about people should be using the
LTS? (Defaulting to the LTS on the website and so on).

Also I am hoping this sort of thing would bring a bunch of new
contributors to  -backports and supporting the LTS for longer, it
always hurt on the inside when you come out with a 10.04 or 12.04 and
6 months later it's already eclipsed by the new interim release.

--
Jorge Castro
Canonical Ltd.
http://juju.ubuntu.com

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Scott Kitterman-3
In reply to this post by Rick Spencer-2
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 07:31:49 AM Rick Spencer wrote:
...
> = Role of the Interim Releases =
> But what about the 3 releases we do every six months in between (what I
> call the "interim releases")? Who are they for? Why do we invest so much in
> supporting multiple interim releases at a time?
>
> I think the value of the interim releases has run its course:
...

This may be true for Canonical and the Ubuntu desktop, but I strongly believe
it's not the case for Kubuntu.  For me, a Kubuntu release means the most
current KDE.  I generally run the latest regular release and I think that most
of our user base does too.

KDE releases on a regular 6 month cadence, just like Ubuntu has, so this has
worked very well.

In my view, for Kubuntu, every single release is important.  I don't think we
treat LTS releases much differently.  If there's no Ubuntu release anymore,
it's not immediately obvious how to sustain this.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Security Support - Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Scott Kitterman-3
In reply to this post by Marc Deslauriers-3
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:29:45 AM Marc Deslauriers wrote:

> On 13-02-28 11:23 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 05:09:26 PM Martin Pitt wrote:
> >>>  * Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support
> >>>
> >>> only until the next snapshot
> >>
> >> This is the main point where I have doubts and questions:
> >>  * What does "support" mean for the monthly snapshots? Hopefully not
> >>  
> >>    security updates, SRUs, and backports? That would ruin pretty much
> >>    all the savings that we do from dropping the interim releases.
> >
> > I think it's critical too.  Currently there is no security support in the
> > development series.  I have a hard time envisioning something with no
> > support from the Ubuntu security team as a release of any kind.  It's
> > certainly not something I could recommend who isn't involved in Ubuntu
> > development run on a system they care about.
>
> The security team does support the development release. When we push
> updates for the stable release, our policy is to either sync, merge or
> fix the packages in the dev release also.
>
> We will also be pushing urgent security updates to monthly snapshot users.

Will they start getting USN coverage?

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Marc Deslauriers-3
In reply to this post by Rick Spencer-2
On 13-02-28 10:31 AM, Rick Spencer wrote:
> To succeed at this we will need both velocity and agility. Therefore, I
> am starting a discussion about dropping non-LTS releases and move to a
> rolling release plus LTS releases right now.

YES! :P

>
> = Role of the LTS Releases =
> Many users prefer their OS does not change very often. We have a great
> system in place for these users. Every 2 years Ubuntu release an LTS and
> users can ride that LTS for the whole support period. Since the LTS
> comes out every 2 years, they can set a 2 year cadence of updates if
> they want to stay "up to date" with LTS releases. I think this 2 year
> cadence works out very well for these users. So, this proposal maintains
> those LTS releases as anchors for those users.
>
> = Role of the Interim Releases =
> But what about the 3 releases we do every six months in between (what I
> call the "interim releases")? Who are they for? Why do we invest so much
> in supporting multiple interim releases at a time?

I completely agree with dropping the interim releases. I have been
recommending that everyone use LTS releases for a long time now, as they
are usually of much higher quality and stability than the interim releases.

> * Due to Daily Quality efforts, the development release is now usable
> every day, so enthusiasts and community members don’t have to wait for a
> stable release to get the latest software and can participate more fully
> in the development of Ubuntu

Yes, Raring has been quite a delight to use and update every day.

>
> More clearly, I think we should:
> * Stop making interim releases.
> * Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
> * Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support
> only until the next snapshot
>
> That means users could choose:
> * The LTS release
> * The rolling release updated daily or as frequently as desired
> * The rolling release updated at least monthly

I like the monthly snapshot idea. It allows us to set goals, promote new
features, and allows technical enthusiasts to use the development
release without having the massive package churn every single day. This
also isolates them from bad uploads in the rare cases where they may occur.

>
> == For Users ==
> Users who prefer the LTS releases will be unaffected by this change, at
> least directly. For users who prefer more up to date software, the
> rolling release will truly provide the latest and greatest software that
> they are looking for, but without the 6 month wait for a new release.
> Developers won’t be under pressure to rush a feature in before the
> release deadline, so users will be receiving more complete software when
> they do get updates.
>
> == For Community ==
> The community will benefit from the simplified model. They will be able
> to recommend either the LTS or the rolling release, and the users of
> each will be clear. People who need to provide support may find their
> lives dramatically simplified, because on any one day, there will
> essentially be 2 releases with clearly differentiated user bases instead
> of their user base being distributed across a minimum of 3 supported
> releases. For example, on any one day, an ISV typically would only have
> to worry about the LTS releases and the current rolling release, instead
> of 11.10, 12.04, 12.10 and the current development releases, Raring.
>
> == For Core/MOTU Developers ==
> For the people who are actually making Ubuntu (the people on this thread
> I hope) there are some clear wins as well.
>
> 1. Only 2 releases to support, the LTS and the rolling releases. That
> means fewer SRUs to worry about, and only for LTS releases. More time
> and attention to focus on what we are building instead of what we had built.
> 2. Features land when they are ready, not earlier or later.
> 3. No one will get stuck supporting "old" software that is not part of
> an LTS release.

I think this will greatly simplify handling bugs. If there's a bug in an
LTS release, it's worthwhile to get it fixed, as that's what most of our
users will be using. If there's a bug in the development release, it's
easy to fix it or to move to a newer upstream that has fixed it. I've
seen bugs and SRUs go untested for a long time because they are in an
older interim release, which nobody is actually using anymore.

Getting rid of the interim releases will reduce some of our security
update maintenance burden and will allow us to concentrate on getting
more security issues fixed and increase the time available for getting
more proactive security measures in place.


I think this proposal makes complete sense, and I am all for it.

Marc.


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Security Support - Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Martin Pitt-4
In reply to this post by Marc Deslauriers-3
Marc Deslauriers [2013-02-28 11:29 -0500]:
> The security team does support the development release. When we push
> updates for the stable release, our policy is to either sync, merge or
> fix the packages in the dev release also.

That has been my impression as well. I would think that often this
should be the easiest case, as often it just means a sync or even
autosync.

> We will also be pushing urgent security updates to monthly snapshot users.

So if the "last monthly" is supposed to actually be a kind of a
release, instead of just a blessed daily installation image, this
would mean that there would be a new series each month?

I would expect users to upgrade to the latest packages of the RR each
time update-notifier pops up, regardless of which medium they used to
install. After a month this needs to happen anyway, so why not right
away?

Thanks,

Martin
--
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Jonathan Riddell-2
In reply to this post by Rick Spencer-2

Along with no UDS this feels like a further move away from being a community project for Ubuntu.

After much time lobbying KDE (and other upstreams) to move to 6
monthly releases that has been working nicely for some years but if we
lose that cadance we will be in danger of losing a lot of what makes
this work well.

Currently we put beta and RC releases of upstream projects in the
development release for widespread testing.  Where do we put those in
this model of removing the non-LTS releases?

When the idea of doing away with alphas and betas was being discussed
it was said that infrastrucure would be added to make that easy for
flavours.  What is the status of that?

Jonathan

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Security Support - Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Scott Kitterman-3
In reply to this post by Martin Pitt-4
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 05:49:46 PM Martin Pitt wrote:

> Marc Deslauriers [2013-02-28 11:29 -0500]:
> > The security team does support the development release. When we push
> > updates for the stable release, our policy is to either sync, merge or
> > fix the packages in the dev release also.
>
> That has been my impression as well. I would think that often this
> should be the easiest case, as often it just means a sync or even
> autosync.
>
> > We will also be pushing urgent security updates to monthly snapshot users.
>
> So if the "last monthly" is supposed to actually be a kind of a
> release, instead of just a blessed daily installation image, this
> would mean that there would be a new series each month?
>
> I would expect users to upgrade to the latest packages of the RR each
> time update-notifier pops up, regardless of which medium they used to
> install. After a month this needs to happen anyway, so why not right
> away?

I'm probably in the minority, but I actually read the USNs and consider when
to apply them.  As an example, when I'm traveling and only have my laptop
available, I only apply updates that are important for security reasons that
are relevant to my situation.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Security Support - Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Marc Deslauriers-3
In reply to this post by Scott Kitterman-3
On 13-02-28 11:32 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:29:45 AM Marc Deslauriers wrote:
>> On 13-02-28 11:23 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 05:09:26 PM Martin Pitt wrote:
>>>>>  * Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support
>>>>>
>>>>> only until the next snapshot
>>>>
>>>> This is the main point where I have doubts and questions:
>>>>  * What does "support" mean for the monthly snapshots? Hopefully not
>>>>  
>>>>    security updates, SRUs, and backports? That would ruin pretty much
>>>>    all the savings that we do from dropping the interim releases.
>>>
>>> I think it's critical too.  Currently there is no security support in the
>>> development series.  I have a hard time envisioning something with no
>>> support from the Ubuntu security team as a release of any kind.  It's
>>> certainly not something I could recommend who isn't involved in Ubuntu
>>> development run on a system they care about.
>>
>> The security team does support the development release. When we push
>> updates for the stable release, our policy is to either sync, merge or
>> fix the packages in the dev release also.
>>
>> We will also be pushing urgent security updates to monthly snapshot users.
>
> Will they start getting USN coverage?

I don't know how the monthly snapshots will be handled yet. For now, I
just want users of monthly snapshots to get urgent security fixes that
can't wait a month for the next snapshot to roll over.

Marc.



--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases [no raring]

Jonathan Riddell
In reply to this post by Rick Spencer-2
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 07:31:49AM -0800, Rick Spencer wrote:
>    Therefore, I think we should keep LTS releases, but starting now, stop
>    doing interim releases and start a rolling release.

Many people gave up a week of their lives to plan Raring and have been
working on it for the last 4 months.  Is this suggestion to
immediately do away with those plans 2 months from release date
serious?

As this "let's do a UDS next week" this feels like a plan long hatched
and only now presented to Ubuntu.

Jonathan

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

C de-Avillez-2
In reply to this post by Marc Deslauriers-3
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:44:47 -0500
Marc Deslauriers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > That means users could choose:
> > * The LTS release
> > * The rolling release updated daily or as frequently as desired
> > * The rolling release updated at least monthly
>
> I like the monthly snapshot idea. It allows us to set goals,
> promote new features, and allows technical enthusiasts to use the
> development release without having the massive package churn every
> single day. This also isolates them from bad uploads in the rare
> cases where they may occur.
A monthy snapshot allows us to (as Marc points out) to set goals and
promote new features. But we should be really strict there -- no
last-minute changes (like, historically, we have seen with Unity). If
something is not ready, then this something *MUST* be postponed. We
will be now, at most, delaying one month (or a few days).

I am all for rolling release process between LTSs, but, please, let's
do it right.

..C..

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Mario Limonciello-2
In reply to this post by Rick Spencer-2
Thanks Rick.  I applaud this proposal.

This definitely helps to reaffirm the decision that we made with Mythbuntu to move to LTS only for our releases.  We have had an incredibly positive response within our sub-community with the decision.

I look forward to hearing more about how this will affect the point releases for LTS though.  Currently LTS point releases are bringing in HW backports from the previous 6 month release.  Will they keep a similar schedule and pick up the current development release snapshot?

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Rick Spencer <[hidden email]> wrote:
= tl;dr =
Ubuntu has an amazing opportunity in the next 7-8 months to deliver a Phone OS that will be widely adopted by users and industry while also putting into place the foundation for a truly converged OS.

To succeed at this we will need both velocity and agility. Therefore, I am starting a discussion about dropping non-LTS releases and move to a rolling release plus LTS releases right now.

= Role of the LTS Releases =
Many users prefer their OS does not change very often. We have a great system in place for these users. Every 2 years Ubuntu release an LTS and users can ride that LTS for the whole support period. Since the LTS comes out every 2 years, they can set a 2 year cadence of updates if they want to stay "up to date" with LTS releases. I think this 2 year cadence works out very well for these users. So, this proposal maintains those LTS releases as anchors for those users.

= Role of the Interim Releases =
But what about the 3 releases we do every six months in between (what I call the "interim releases")? Who are they for? Why do we invest so much in supporting multiple interim releases at a time?

I think the value of the interim releases has run its course:
* Customers (people who pay Canonical and others to support Ubuntu) like OEMs and Enterprises have all adopted an LTS to LTS cadence.
* Many community members recommend only LTS releases to new users because of its longevity and stability, but the interim releases cause confusion about what is the “right” version for someone to install.
* As Scott James Remnant pointed out some time ago, the six month cadence causes features to be either rushed, or to have to wait for six months to be released (along with other problems). (http://netsplit.com/2011/09/08/new-ubuntu-release-process/)
* Due to Daily Quality efforts, the development release is now usable every day, so enthusiasts and community members don’t have to wait for a stable release to get the latest software and can participate more fully in the development of Ubuntu
* Supporting interim releases is a costly distraction from future development, a cost in both time and attention.

= Ubuntu NG =
In the meantime, with Ubuntu Touch, the Phone, the Tablet, and convergence of these device experiences with the Desktop, we are in the process of inventing what is essentially a next generation Ubuntu. There will be lots of new code written and code integrated from new sources to accomplish this. The 13.04 Desktop would not have any of this new code, and therefore will be "old" before it is even released.

Therefore, I think we should keep LTS releases, but starting now, stop doing interim releases and start a rolling release.

More clearly, I think we should:
* Stop making interim releases.
* Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
* Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support only until the next snapshot

That means users could choose:
* The LTS release
* The rolling release updated daily or as frequently as desired
* The rolling release updated at least monthly

= Benefits of Moving to a Rolling Release =
A rolling release instead of interim releases will benefit users, community members, and developers.

== For Users ==
Users who prefer the LTS releases will be unaffected by this change, at least directly. For users who prefer more up to date software, the rolling release will truly provide the latest and greatest software that they are looking for, but without the 6 month wait for a new release. Developers won’t be under pressure to rush a feature in before the release deadline, so users will be receiving more complete software when they do get updates.

== For Community ==
The community will benefit from the simplified model. They will be able to recommend either the LTS or the rolling release, and the users of each will be clear. People who need to provide support may find their lives dramatically simplified, because on any one day, there will essentially be 2 releases with clearly differentiated user bases instead of their user base being distributed across a minimum of 3 supported releases. For example, on any one day, an ISV typically would only have to worry about the LTS releases and the current rolling release, instead of 11.10, 12.04, 12.10 and the current development releases, Raring.

== For Core/MOTU Developers ==
For the people who are actually making Ubuntu (the people on this thread I hope) there are some clear wins as well.

1. Only 2 releases to support, the LTS and the rolling releases. That means fewer SRUs to worry about, and only for LTS releases. More time and attention to focus on what we are building instead of what we had built.
2. Features land when they are ready, not earlier or later.
3. No one will get stuck supporting "old" software that is not part of an LTS release.

= Why Now? =
There are two answers for this.
1. Because of Convergence
2. Because we can

== Convergence ==
The vision before us is feasible, and we can do it if we are smart about focusing our resources on the future.  We can make a Free and Open Source OS that uses the same code base to power phones, tablets, desktops, workstations, servers, clouds, and services in clouds! We can ensure a place for Free and Open Source software in the future where people are running desktops off their phones, televisions off their tablets, and all the other combinations that convergence will bring us. We *can* do this.

But to do this, we need to continue quickly down the path that we have started on, making Ubuntu the best client OS on any form factor. Winning our place among the new industry leaders delivering devices to end users will take copious focus and effort on our part. We can't afford to let our focus and effort to get siphoned off into releasing and supporting software that is not taking us closer to that future.

== Because we Can ==
Daily Quality means that developers can ensure their components are stable and useful before they upload, and our processes protect us from most mistakes these days. The result is that 13.04 has been as robust a release over the last many weeks as 12.10 was when we delivered. We have achieved rolling release quality in our development practices, so we can capitalize on this capability now.

= Next Steps =
Such a change needs to be discussed in the Ubuntu community. Therefore, I asked my team to put together a strawman proposal for how such moving to a monthly cadence with rolling release might work. I will be discussing a rough outline of  this proposal on Friday 27th Feb at 6pm UTC / 10am Pacific / 1pm EST at http://www.ubuntuonair.com. Then we can talk specifics next week at UDS.

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel




--
Mario Limonciello
[hidden email]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Security Support - Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Marc Deslauriers-3
In reply to this post by Martin Pitt-4
On 13-02-28 11:49 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:

> Marc Deslauriers [2013-02-28 11:29 -0500]:
>> The security team does support the development release. When we push
>> updates for the stable release, our policy is to either sync, merge or
>> fix the packages in the dev release also.
>
> That has been my impression as well. I would think that often this
> should be the easiest case, as often it just means a sync or even
> autosync.
>
>> We will also be pushing urgent security updates to monthly snapshot users.
>
> So if the "last monthly" is supposed to actually be a kind of a
> release, instead of just a blessed daily installation image, this
> would mean that there would be a new series each month?
>
> I would expect users to upgrade to the latest packages of the RR each
> time update-notifier pops up, regardless of which medium they used to
> install. After a month this needs to happen anyway, so why not right
> away?

I don't know the exact mechanism, but I assume this will allow monthly
snapshot users to get a big heap of updates once a month instead of
getting a bunch every few days.

Marc.



--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Monthly snapshots Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases (and a Rolling Release)

Scott Kitterman-3
In reply to this post by Rick Spencer-2
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 07:31:49 AM Rick Spencer wrote:

> More clearly, I think we should:
>  * Stop making interim releases.
>  * Keep doing daily quality and keep improving our daily quality.
>  * Take a monthly snapshot of the development release, which we support
> only until the next snapshot
>
> That means users could choose:
>  * The LTS release
>  * The rolling release updated daily or as frequently as desired
>  * The rolling release updated at least monthly

Has there been any technical discussion about how this would work?  If so, can
we have a pointer to it?

Is the snapshot a separate archive with a different sources.list entry and
moving to the next snapshot is like a mini release-upgrade?

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's Discuss Interim Releases [no raring]

Scott Kitterman-3
In reply to this post by Jonathan Riddell
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 04:58:27 PM Jonathan Riddell wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 07:31:49AM -0800, Rick Spencer wrote:
> >    Therefore, I think we should keep LTS releases, but starting now, stop
> >    doing interim releases and start a rolling release.
>
> Many people gave up a week of their lives to plan Raring and have been
> working on it for the last 4 months.  Is this suggestion to
> immediately do away with those plans 2 months from release date
> serious?
>
> As this "let's do a UDS next week" this feels like a plan long hatched
> and only now presented to Ubuntu.

Definitely.  I wonder what the next announcement will be?

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
1234 ... 12