After reading Scott James Remnant's monthly release proposal for ubuntu (http://netsplit.com/2011/09/08/new-ubuntu-release-process/), I developed great hope that this might actually happen. I very much like the "rolling release" concept (a la Arch Linux) coupled with a stable "for the masses" LTS release every two years. Personally, I think the 6 month release cycle creates way too many bugs. Bugs that unfortunately live for years, even through LTS releases. Ultimately this situation is holding Ubuntu back from mainstream adoption. Pushing the LTS release as the "recommended for consumers" build would allow third-party application-developers to focus on a stable platform for increasing mainstream support and acceptance of Ubuntu. Having the OS overhauled every 6 months is too tumultuous for mainstream adoption. The rolling release would help increase the stability and development of the LTS while simultaneously providing cutting edge stuff along with less reliance on PPAs for those who want newer versions of applications. It would also more gradually ease users into change.

I'm curious as to Canonical's reaction to the proposal. Is it receiving serious consideration? Does Canonical have another plan to address the many bugs that plague Ubuntu?

closed as not constructive by Jorge Castro, ish, Marco Ceppi Aug 20 '12 at 14:52

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    If you think two releases a year introduces too many bugs, how many more do you think you would get with updates every day? That is exactly what you get early on in the development release, and it's a mess. Bugs get fixed when they are tested, so more people running the 6 month releases helps find and fix bugs. If they were stuck with LTS releases, then fewer bugs would be found and fixed before the next LTS. – psusi Oct 6 '11 at 1:35
  • I'm not sure you understand Remnant's proposal. Assuming you read it, I don't see why you are comparing daily updates in a development cycle to what Remnant proposed. They are two different things. Remnant's proposal has rigorous testing protocols and nothing lands until its ready. Not being forced to a 6 month release is what will allow software to mature before landing. If the software is not ready, it won't land until the next month or the month after. As opposed to having to wait 6 more months for the next release, which is resulting in software landing before it's ready. – Chad--24216 Oct 6 '11 at 13:03
  • I voted this question down because it invites opinion and not a definitive answer. – grahammechanical Oct 6 '11 at 15:42
  • @grahammechanical. Yeah, I expressed my opinion to add some context to the question, but the Question is not asking for other people's opinions (nor does it invite others to give their opinion). I asked about Canonical's view of the proposal. Further, I already marked Bicha as giving a definitive answer: the proposal's success would depend on widespread community support. And the discussion about if it would be successful or not will take place until UDS-P. – Chad--24216 Oct 6 '11 at 21:16
  • Adding rigorous automated testing has nothing to do with modifying the release cycle. Doing that is not a bad idea if the resources are there to do it. Changing from one release every 6 months to one release every month would make for an even more unstable release, so even more people would opt to stick with the LTS, which would mean less testing. I don't see how the release cycle has anything to do with software landing before it is ready; if it isn't ready, then it shouldn't land, no matter how often you release. – psusi Oct 6 '11 at 23:37

It's not at all apparent that attempting to release significant updates every month will improve Ubuntu's quality, and there's fear it will make Ubuntu's quality assurance worse as Ubuntu has a limited number of developers and testers.

My opinion is that it's not Canonical's decision alone because Ubuntu is a product of Canonical paid developers and community developers (in addition to all the work done by the many upstreams including Debian, GNOME, and so on). This would at least partly lie in the Technical Board's responsibility. Besides Mark Shuttleworth, the Technical Board has 3 Canonical employees and 3 members from the community.

It's a decision that would need widespread developer support which so far I've not seen. It will definitely be discussed among participants at the next Ubuntu Developer Summit in a few weeks but don't count on it happening any time soon.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.