#ubuntu-uds-community-1 2013-03-05 * udsbotu changed the topic of #ubuntu-uds-community-1 to: Track: Community | Testing ubuntu onÂ new platforms | Url: http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21669/community-1303-quality <smartboyhw> hello <zyga-uds> hey everyone <SergioMeneses> smartboyhw, \o <jono_> #ubuntu-uds-community-2 <balloons> hey everyone.. this should be a fun first session <jono_> #ubuntu-uds-community-2 <jono_> oops <smartboyhw> baloons please give me updates of session as I'm on mobile and not enough bamdwidth for Hangout <SergioMeneses> jono_, jajaja <balloons> smartboyhw, ahh <smartboyhw> jono_ what's room 2 on about? <balloons> zyga-uds, mmrazik u guys wanting to join in the hangout? <SergioMeneses> balloons, we're going to have a fun session :D <balloons> anyone else? trying to make sure we have proper folks in the session <zyga-uds> balloons: yes <ogra_> what are the proper folks ? :) <zyga-uds> balloons: I'm interested to know how this overlaps with hardware certification <smartboyhw> I would lov to if I had my computer here............. <smartboyhw> lol <mmrazik> balloons: I can if there are enough hangout slots but I don't have to <smartboyhw> eh? <SergioMeneses> dholbach, balloons hi! <smartboyhw> mmrazik: I think we have enough... <smartboyhw> uhoh zyga-uds left <ogra_> plars, ! what a beard !!! <smartboyhw> lol <plars> ogra_: :) <smartboyhw> So who's on Hangout? <dholbach> smartboyhw, I'm on the left ;-) <VencaCZ_> where i can get hangout adress? <dholbach> VencaCZ_, http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21669/community-1303-quality-testingstrategy/ <VencaCZ_> ty <smartboyhw> dholbach I"m on mobile how can I see? <dholbach> smartboyhw, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7LpRcllyYA <diwic> dholbach 's video feed disappeared <dholbach> diwic, can you see the other people's feeds? <ogra_> dholbach, just you <ogra_> (are gone) <smartboyhw> dholbach There was a problem while playing <ogra_> ah, back <smartboyhw> Touch to retry..... <diwic> dholbach is back <dholbach> do you see whoever's speaking? <zyga-uds> is that testing stack public? how can other developer use it? <ogra_> dholbach, yup <dholbach> I just momentarily stopped my video feed to try out something else <dholbach> you don't need to see me ;-) <dholbach> I'm not really part of this discussion :) <smartboyhw> dholbach I can't get to it.... <dholbach> smartboyhw, it's just a normal youtube video? <ogra_> dholbach, but you have the funniest headphones ! <diwic> dholbach, ok, just made sure you were aware <dholbach> diwic, thanks <dholbach> ogra_, I like them :) <dholbach> ogra_, shall I use these instead? <cwayne> +1 exploratory testing * ogra_ didnt say he doesnt :) <zyga-uds> what kind of tests are you running? is that testing the software stack more or the hardware enablement? <sebsebseb> hi <gema_uds_> hi <smartboyhw> dholbach: There was a problem while playing. Tap to retry <cjohnston> smartboyhw: it sounds like you are having trouble with your mobile and playing hangouts. there isn't really anything we can do about htat <smartboyhw> yeah * smartboyhw condemns his ARMv6 A <smartboyhw> Samsung Android <balloons> zyga-uds, did your question get answered? <zyga-uds> plars: where is the dashboard? <dholbach> anyone else who wants to be part of this discussion? who wants to be part of the "fishbowl"? :) <zyga-uds> balloons: I don't think so <cjohnston> zyga-uds: reporst.qa.ubuntu.com I believe is what he is referring to <zyga-uds> dholbach: I would love to be <gema_uds_> zyga-uds: http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/ <cjohnston> reports too.. ^ <gema_uds_> cjohnston: you don't know the URL yet? :P <cjohnston> I don't know how to spell <dholbach> zyga-uds, sent you a link in an irc query <cjohnston> and I don't use the URL <mmrazik> took an external USB cam :) <dholbach> mmrazik, might want to mute yourself while typing ;-) <cjohnston> mmrazik: mute yourself while your playing <zyga-uds> dholbach: it works but I don't know how to attend, I guess I have to reload -- typing in private does not work <mmrazik> balloons: srry. It must be when I plugged the camera in. it has yet another mic <dholbach> zyga-uds, does http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/attend_meeting/21669/ work? <vila> mute the dog ;) <zyga-uds> reloading didn't help, sorry <zyga-uds> I lost the previous message <cjohnston> zyga-uds: what are you wanting? <gema_uds_> we are still working on the views for memory and eventstat <gema_uds_> those views are not in production yet <ogra_> zyga-uds, ! <balloons> anyone else wish to join in the hangout.. or have questions? <ogra_> balloons, well, i'D really like to know how we plwan to handle the android parts, they are an essential bit of phablet (no need that i'm in the hangout though) <balloons> u can pop in for a moment if you wish to ask <dholbach> balloons, ogra_ would need to get dressed first :-P <smartboyhw> lol <ogra_> lol, no, i'm showered and dressed, but couldnt say much beyond that <VencaCZ_> where i can get source for ubuntu mobile? i want part it for my phone <VencaCZ_> port <diwic> I'd just like to say I really appreciate the community resources we have for testing; e g before releasing a new PulseAudio version into 13.04 we were able to have some community people testing it in a PPA. Thanks to everyone helping out with this! <ogra_> VencaCZ_, in #ubuntu-tablet :) <VencaCZ_> ok ty <ogra_> LOL, ok <ogra_> someone paste me a link <ogra_> hmm, the join button just hangs :/ <cjohnston> ogra_: are you referring to the fact that the phablet image currently uses Android stuff, and are we going to keep that in the image or remove it? <ogra_> cjohnston, we will keep it <cjohnston> was taking a shot in the dark to see if I could interpret the question * ogra_ canzt join it seems, sorry <balloons> ogra_, ahh.. well try rephrasing the question then ;-) <ogra_> well, how do we make sure we get testing of the android layer in the phablet images, automated and by manual community testing <dholbach> does the hangout still work? for me it just broke <diwic> broke here too <vila> googgle hangout just broke <josepht> broke for me too <cgregan_> down here too <cking> broke for me <dholbach> bah <vrruiz> Yup <rfowler_> uh oh <ogra_> same here <zyga-uds> try reloading <cjohnston> works for me <ogra_> yep, works again <balloons> whoa.. a bit a hiccup <SergioMeneses> reload it <vrruiz> Back <plars> we're stress testing google hangout today! <vrruiz> lol <ogra_> note that ubuntu just runs in a container on top of a minimal android <ogra_> its not just the kernel <ogra_> its a full minimal android <ogra_> the complete HW stack is android <ogra_> (way more than the kernel) <ogra_> it is waht we currently have and will very likely also keep <ogra_> we need that part since we dont have any other way of getting drivers <gema_uds_> ogra_: do you want to try to join the hangout again? <ogra_> gema_uds_, i tried over and over, the "join" button is greyed out <gema_uds_> ogra_: you need to click on the acceptance button that you don't mind your image to be broadcasted <gema_uds_> did you click on thata? <ogra_> the driveras also require the userspces framework <ogra_> gema_uds_, i didnt have that * ogra_ tries again <ogra_> bah ! <cking> but the android kernel has not been tested with our user space, so it makes sense to test it <dholbach> mmrazik, balloons^ <Limurx> hey daniel :D <dholbach> hi Limurx :) <balloons> cking, yes, i agree <vila> testing all layers is good, testing each layer is good, in the end we'll need all kind of tests <vila> but starting with the autopilot ones, testing all layers at least give us some guarantee that things will run for the user <vila> devs will prefer to know which layer is at fault when something breaks though... <udsbotu> uds-community-1: 5 minutes left in this session! <smartboyhw> uh oh <udsbotu> uds-community-1: 4 minutes left in this session! <ogra_> vila, exactly, i just wanted to make aware that we need code for that ... i.e. we dont use the ubuntu input layer at all in the phablet images <joe-uds> are there virtual environments for those w/o HW to use for testing? <dholbach> ogra_, muted you while typing <ogra_> joe-uds, we will have a discussion about VM and emulator at 7pm in the SDK session <cking> ogra_, perhaps a work items is for you to figure out what needs testing <ogra_> dholbach, thanks <ogra_> cking, sure <udsbotu> uds-community-1: 3 minutes left in this session! <vila> ogra_: good point, I think someone mentioned that the autopilot session later will need to care about that * ogra_ wont be able to attend many more testing session, thats why i'm here and thourgh i shoudl bring it up :) <ogra_> *thought <udsbotu> uds-community-1: 2 minutes left in this session! <ogra_> mmrazik, we might just build x86 android/phablet images <ogra_> to run in any VM you like <mmrazik> ogra_: yup. might be one of the options * joe-uds claps <udsbotu> uds-community-1: This session has ended. * udsbotu changed the topic of #ubuntu-uds-community-1 to: Currently no events are active in this room - http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/community-1/ - http://ubottu.com/uds-logs/%23ubuntu-uds-community-1.log <Limurx> Gonna be a hot discussion right now ;) * mainerror takes seat <mainerror> These walks from room to room are exhausting ... <stgraber> dholbach: can you invite me to the hangout for community-1303-rolling-release? (assuming you're the one running it) <cjohnston> stgraber: if you are required then the link is available for you in summit <dholbach> stgraber, above the video there should be link <stgraber> cjohnston, dholbach: right, refreshing fixed it <FunnyLookinHat_> Who is running this session? jono ? * udsbotu changed the topic of #ubuntu-uds-community-1 to: Track: Community | Should Ubuntu adopt a monthly cadence/rolling release? | Url: http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling <YoBoY> FunnyLookinHat_, it's dholbach <dholbach> YoBoY, salut mon ami <YoBoY> bonjour, comment Ã§a va ? :) <FunnyLookinHat_> dholbach, CarlRichell and I are here from System76 and we'd love to be pulled into the Hangout if there's room <rickspencer3> YoBoY, stgraber nous parlons en franÃ§ais pout cette session? <dholbach> trÃ¨s bien - et toi - il fait beau ici - beaucoup de soleil Ã Berlin <rickspencer3> hi FunnyLookinHat_ * philipballew feels language isolation <FunnyLookinHat_> rickspencer3, Yo <YoBoY> rickspencer3, avec plaisir :) <rickspencer3> dholbach, can you invite the System76 guys? <jcastro_> heya CarlRichell! <CarlRichell> heya Jorge! <cjwatson> pgraner: Can you include me in the hangout for this one? <philipballew> if you need more people to give a "loCo" perspective, I can join the hangout here as well. <YoBoY> dholbach, un peu malade, mais il fait beau aussi :) <cjwatson> dholbach: ^- or if it's you <FunnyLookinHat_> Go ahead and invite Carl on Gplus <FunnyLookinHat_> he's driving the webcam <pgraner> cjohnston, https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/f087d7d5109cb66b16cbbdb4b4c7153a846ee9f6 <cjwatson> Shame that this session has conflated rolling release and monthly cadence, which really have a bunch of separate issues associated - I'd suggest that people try to work separately <cjohnston> pgraner: do you mean me? <pgraner> cjohnston, no cjwatson ^^^^^^^^ <cjwatson> ta <pgraner> cjohnston, change your nick damn it <cjwatson> 1 2 3 tab <cjohnston> pgraner: no. * mitya57|uds tries to fix his microphone <mitya57|uds> does anybody hear me <mitya57|uds> ? <philipballew> not currently mitya57|uds <fisch246> ha people are already using Mir... why would you do that this early? <snwh> oh those crazy bleeding-edge folks * mitya57|uds hopes he fixed it <dholbach> does it work for you too? <pitti_uds_> if "it" == video, then not yet <Laney> i had to refresh <Laney> works now <philipballew> video is great <dholbach> perfect <me4oslav> video is great on this end too <snwh> finally got video :D <jonobacon> pitti/Laney - did you want to join?> <Laney> sure <ahayzen> o/ <jonobacon> dholbach: can you invite Laney? <mitya57|uds> ok, looks like it still doesn't work, so I'll just sit in IRC <dholbach> jonobacon, yep <gema_uds2> mitya57|uds: reload the page <mdeslaur> how is this any different than os x that comes out every 18-24 months? <mpt> Windows often goes years between versions. OS X recently switched from new versions every 18-24 months to a new version every 12 months. <dholbach> people marked as bold at the bottom of the page should have a link saying "join hangout" or some such above the video <rbasak> CarlRichell: what would be your ideal cadence then? Six months still? Or something else? <mitya57|uds> gema_uds2: well, anyway I don't have much to say :) <philipballew> How does this affect LoCo's who need to advocate the rolling release? Or should we be showcasing the lts release only? <jcastro_> mdeslaur: people can install new software on old OSX/Windows easily, not so much in ubuntu <slangasek> hmm, I certainly wouldn't agree that every Ubuntu release has been better than the previous <jcastro_> mdeslaur: if you want a newer libreoffice for example, you're either in backport or PPA land. <timrc> Is it weird that I can actually picture adconrad happily frolicking in fields of time, money, and cheesecake? <mdeslaur> jcastro_: that's a different problem, and one that will kind of solve itself if everyone is using LTS <jcastro_> mdeslaur: on other OSes that's just a quick download for users <slangasek> they may be more fit to purpose at the time they come out due to changes in the requirements for software <slangasek> but I don't think each Ubuntu release has been "better" <dobey> windows releases approximately every 5 years <tumbleweed> dobey: I suspcet that may speed up now <xnox> System76Chi: are you providing security support beyond 18m cycle? or do you upgrade all of their users to next non-lts? <victorp__> rickspencer3: we (in canonical) are working with HP,DELL and Lenovo PCs and Laptops only using LTS releases already <xnox> System76Chi: i don't want to buy laptop which will star saying it's obsolete in less than 12months. <tumbleweed> I think if we have less releases putting more work into LTSs would be vital <victorp__> so I am not sure OEMs do what quicker cycles for PCs <mpt> Windows Vista, 2006-2007: Windows 7, 2009: Windows 8, 2012. <victorp__> specially thanks to the hardware updates in point releases <barry> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_x <TheMuso> mpt: Agreed, WIndows every 2 years. <TheMuso> OS X was every 2 until last year. <barry> (scroll down for versions - release dates are ~2yrs) <snwh> albeit XP still has a huge chunk <snwh> rolling release would avoid version stagnation if updates are continuous <dmj_nova> People don't care that things don't change, they care that they don't break unpredictably <mpt> Some different meanings of "stability": (1) error rate <http://errors.ubuntu.com/> (2) amount of UI change (3) amount of API change (4) number of SRUs <tumbleweed> snwh: the plans look like just dropping 6-monthly releases, not doing significantly more work on the development release than happens at the moment <gQuigs> so let's cut support for the 6 month release to 8 months? <dmj_nova> Who will the rolling release be suitable for? <mdeslaur> dmj_nova: developers, and tech enthusiasts <smartboyhw> Why don't we release 13.04, cancel 13.10 and make it rollling for a year, then review and see of we are to implement only LTSes + rolling release forever? <jonobacon> mpt: do you want to join the session? <xnox> Would you ship rolling? <snwh> tumbleweed, oh yes I know :) <dmj_nova> 2 years is *far* too long to go without a stable system with fresh software <mpt> dmj_nova, "software" is a vague term <tumbleweed> dmj_nova: for some classes of users, not all <dobey> dmj_nova: what do you mean by "fresh" there? <mpt> in this context, at least <slangasek> dmj_nova: this comes back to the disagreement about what "stable" means <me4oslav> is 2 years, really THAT much? People still stick to god know how old XP. <dmj_nova> Would you recommend the rolling release in production environments (workstations, not servers) <slangasek> I would not <dobey> no <mdeslaur> no <me4oslav> no <slangasek> I wouldn't recommend the 6-month releases in a production environment either <slangasek> I only recommend the LTS <dmj_nova> me4oslav: it can be a huge amount of time, especially with a fast-moving platform <YoBoY> I only recommand LTS in production enviironments <slangasek> I only *deploy* the LTS on family machines that I have to support <mathor> I think the argument is that 12.10 wasn't completely stable in comparison to 12.04. With features you lose stability. That is all a rolling release is suggesting. <dmj_nova> Already, we are having trouble supporting Precise <slangasek> dmj_nova: what trouble, why? <dmj_nova> (without backporting gstreamer, webkit, python, udisks2, etc <mdeslaur> dmj_nova: hrm? <dobey> slangasek: the thing cjwatson is saying in the hangout right now <txwikinger-uds> Already using "rolling releases" on different level in production environment <pmk1c> I also only recommend LTS, since most of the people I recommend Ubuntu to are used to Windows. They would be irritated by updates more regular than every 2 years. <xnox> CarlRichell: would you ship rolling ? <dobey> we have too many releases to support at once, so it's difficult to spend time both developing the new release and supporting all the existing releases <dmj_nova> the alternative being to stick with old tech until the next LTS (and thus not track upstream at all) <philipballew> Its to risky as somene recommending software to someone to recomend that is not lts for nots us, and the user. There computer is more likely to not funtion well with Ubuntu, and cause their Ubuntu experience to not be as good as it might be. <noahl> what about either a) reducing the support for the 6-month releases <mathor> 12.10 was buggy, and a daily iso will be buggy, but both are stable enough to use if you do not need complete stability, which you can only get in an LTS. <jdstrand> cjwatson: firefox is also self-contained <dmj_nova> pmk1c: Windows ismoving to a yearly cycle <noahl> or b) using a different cadence for different "levels" of system? So maybe glibc is on a 2-year cycle, but Unity is on 6 months? <slangasek> dobey: I was asking dmj_nova what trouble they were having in particular, not what trouble *Ubuntu* has had supporting the LTS <slangasek> I'm well familiar with the latter :) <dobey> dmj_nova: you're working under the assumption that LTS will *never* get updates <dmj_nova> slangasek: basically it was beginning to take about 3 man-days to backport every month * udsbotu changed the topic of #ubuntu-uds-community-1 to: Track: Community | Should Ubuntu adopt a monthly cadence/rolling release? | Url: http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21683/community-1303-rolling-release/ <dobey> slangasek: ah, I read that as the royal "we" :) <tumbleweed> shipping hardware with a dev release sounds crazy <mdeslaur> dmj_nova: backporting what? <cjwatson> jdstrand: well. yes it mostly is now that we threw all the extensions out of the archive ... <YoBoY> for the ubuntu documentation (in my langage) it's also hard to support lot of branches, but I don't know how we will support a rolling release yet, seems tricky tooâ¦ :] <cjwatson> (almost all, actually - there are still a few) <pitti_uds_> rickspencer3: I hope it's not yet decided whether we do the monthly release thing at all? (as opposed to monthly planning and install images) <dmj_nova> in this case we were backporting gstreamer 1.0 and a couple other things <slangasek> dmj_nova: I don't understand what your use case is that you need backports of "gstreamer, webkit, python, udisks2, etc" <achiang> tumbleweed: and yet, OEMS supported by Canonical did precisely that. in the *bad* old days <mainerror> Google Chrome <tumbleweed> achiang: not with daily updates <slangasek> dmj_nova: the "old" tech is the /stable/ tech - why would backporting python, gstreamer, etc be a priority for you? <dmj_nova> and also having to hold back on using useful new functionality from updated versions of say python <jdstrand> cjwatson: sure. point I was making that unlike unity, it is more or less a leaf application <vila> rickspencer3: I think most devs want to run their own "trunk" may are more conservative with everything is that is not part of their strong dependencies <achiang> tumbleweed: i think we're agreeing? shipping hardware with a dev release is crazy <tumbleweed> achiang: :) * mitya57|uds agrees with infinity's mail â it's not a good idea to leave "monthly" users without critical updates <jcastro_> CarlRichell: Server users. :) <vila> rickspencer3: getting updates from everybody at once may not suit everybody <tumbleweed> achiang: but slightyl less crazy, if it' sa snpshot of a dev release, with security support <dmj_nova> slangasek: there's a big difference between "latest stable" and "old" <smoser_> i think "real users" want the LTS. they are generally annoyed by windows downloading updates and rebooting 6 times. <Darkwing> I'm on LTS because ATI drivers don't work with anything later right now. <gQuigs> so the rolling release would be our general release, and LTS is for those who need really really stable things? <smoser_> they want stuff to work and to use their OS. <achiang> tumbleweed: not from my POV. LTS is the only thing that makes sense to support OEMs on from where i sit <jsjgruber-uds> they may also be adding their own software that has dependencies <FunnyLookinHat_> jcastro_, I'm not sure "server users" should be using LTS though. <mpt> The more of an OS's user base is made up of institutions, the slower that user base upgrades on average, so the longer the optimal release cycle. <tumbleweed> achiang: well, it comes with free security support from canonical... <mathor> LTS systems support schools, office buildings, etc. My university runs 12.04, and they cannot afford to change every six months, so they stick with the LTS. <cjwatson> Universities indeed love LTS releases <FunnyLookinHat_> jcastro_, There are better tools available to address the issues of stability + managing updates ( a la Landscape ) that are much more elegant and efficient, right ? <cjwatson> Because upgrading a PhD student's laptop in the middle of their three/four/whatever-year PhD is REALLY BAD <philipballew> I dont want people showing up to my Ubuntu hour complaining "Their Ubuntu is not working" and this is because they installed a dev release. Even the not lts release now is unsafe to the average user who does not want any problems. <kyleN> does it make sense to find a middle ground on LTS period: perhaps yearly <jcastro_> FunnyLookinHat_: most server users I know want/need the 5 years of support of an LTS. <slangasek> dmj_nova: I don't really feel that you're articulating why this difference matters in your case. I can't imagine ever taking a decision to backport a newer version of infrastructure like gstreamer and python instead of just using the platform that exists. <mdeslaur> maybe we need a separation between the OS itself, and the apps such as LibreOffice...you want the OS to be stable, but you want to get the latest libreoffice <pitti_uds_> TBH, most of my family and friends is using LTSes, too -- much less hassle and potential breakage of what you got used to <jdreed> Universities also liked the interim releases, because their user base of enthusiastic undergrads was clamoring for the latest software. <Darkwing> If ATI, Nvidia and others would keep their drivers updated, I would be good. But, I can't run my desktop without LTS. <mpt> That explains why mobile OSes have new versions more frequently, for example <cjwatson> (I've heard this specifically from University of Cambridge sysadmins) <smoser_> the number, frequency and size of updates honestly make using any sort of ubuntu development release unreasonable. <sbeattie> mdeslaur: +1 <rbasak> There's a whole class of users who are happy with the software they have and don't need anything newer. For them, it's easier if things don't change on them all the time. <ev> mdeslaur: +1; <FunnyLookinHat_> jcastro_, how many people do you know using 8.04 ? I know none. :) A two year upgrade schedule is more than reasonable for many use cases <xnox> mpt: sure but enterprise managed phones are upgraded every 18m. <noahl> mdeslaur: +1 <olafura> The problem with rapid updates is Update Manager which is stupidly slow, maybe use apt demon with indicators. And most importantly Libreoffice and a lot of other debs are just to big. * achiang is still using 12.04 quite happily <dmj_nova> slangasek: using the old gstreamer would mean investing significant development effort improving undeveloped old branches <xnox> mpt: or not emily84@example.com. <smoser_> over the course of any development cycle, we're probably looking at a 700M delta in downloads every week. <slangasek> mdeslaur: I'm much more nervous about behavior changes in applications than I am in the base OS :) <rbasak> Sometimes one of these users finds he needs something newer, and then he's happy to trade of for the latest release (or rolling release or whatever) <jcastro_> FunnyLookinHat_: plenty of people using 12.04 (and there's probably 8.04 around as well) <dmj_nova> It would be like us developing in linux kernel 2.4 <smoser_> that is absurd to believe is acceptable for any consumer level user. <smoser_> (server or desktop) <cjwatson> Right, the university use case where behaviour changes are scary is absolutely about applications, not the base OS <mainerror> My family uses interim releases ever since 10.04 <mpt> olafura, Update Manager aka Software Updater already does use aptdaemon. Adding indicator pixie dust wouldn't make it any faster. :-) <timrc> achiang, I tried to stay on 12.04 but running armhf lxc containers on Raring is so much better :) <dobey> dmj_nova: as novacut is not a stable application/system, and it's a seriously complex system, i think targeting the LTS at this point is probably just a poor decision for novacut <philipballew> We update Firefox in lts, and all people generally do for computing these days i live in a browser. Especially people who do not need anything beyond an lts. <cjwatson> If your scientific application changes its syntax three months before you submit that's disastrous <mainerror> Not quite sure what stability issues everyone is talking about. <mitya57|uds> I am using quantal currently, but it's already hard to develop raring from quantal â for me mostly because of python 3.2 vs 3.3 <dmj_nova> dobey: yes <FunnyLookinHat_> jcastro_, Yeah - I understand what you're saying... I guess my point is, the reasons that people take slow upgrade paths can be replaced with better solutions... we've stopped trying to reform the process and instead are using the same processes that we did in 1999 * balloons pops in <xnox> stgraber: and victorp__ win the best backdrop award of this hangout. <dmj_nova> However, as we are NOT targeting hobbyists <olafura> mpt my problem is that it's tied to the update process <dobey> dmj_nova: once novacut is an actual stable product, you will almost certainly want to only target the LTS <dmj_nova> so we have to consider the cycle once we are ready for professionals <olafura> mpt I use apt-get, most of the time <mpt> olafura, if you want updates to be faster, there are a bunch of ideas at <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareUpdates#Ideas> <philipballew> It's more trouble for me to recommend something thats not a lts. <dobey> dmj_nova: you can't choose to support both a stable platform, and a constantly changing platform, without a cost <rbasak> rickspencer3: good summary. +1 <cjwatson> We really ought to sort out the half-completed debdelta project <dmj_nova> We will likely have issues with recommending Rolling release <FunnyLookinHat_> What's the solution for ISVs who need to update software frequently, but also be able to target solid releases ( instead of a rolling / moving target ) ? <tumbleweed> cjwatson: that'd be fantastic <smoser_> i think that anyone "non-geek" probably hates updates <dmj_nova> 6 month cycles are different <dobey> dmj_nova: we have the same problem with Ubuntu One. there is a cost to supporting multiple versions of Ubuntu, and we're currently paying that cost to do so <txwikinger-uds> On server you might no change ubuntu release but you change i.e. ruby via rvm.. or drupal <mainerror> I mean they generally don't feel any difference between an LTS and interim version. As the supporter I don't feel any difference either. <cjwatson> (Since people keep bringing up upgrade bandwidth volume issues) <smoser_> on windows, on OS/X, on iphone .... <dmj_nova> we could easily recommend them because they're at least predicable <smoser_> they do not want their OS to change. its just an annoyance. <achiang> +1 smoser_ <cjwatson> smoser_: Or their applications <smoser_> maybe hteir applications. <smoser_> yes, there is some sort of line there. <cjwatson> Usually applications changing is even worse <smoser_> and that is hard to identify. <cjwatson> Because they're the things you interact with directly and learn <smoser_> (i do go into the app store and look for updates) <rbasak> Do we need to move on? <dobey> dmj_nova: then novacut made a poor decision to build on an unstable platform, instead of the stable one. you need to find the balance between what your users need and what you want to build, and make necessary compromise <mdeslaur> cjwatson: but it seems to be accepted on all other oses and devices <utlemming> smoser_: to your point...one of the things that I hate about android is how my apps are always updating. <jsjgruber-uds> QUESTION: It seems to me that people fix the easy bugs as they come up but the hard ones wait for the freeze. I think that's human nature. Will the freeze time be extended for this to happen for the LTS releases? Will people have the energy (and patience) to fix difficult bugs that have accumulated over 2 years. <timrc> It's probably easier to manage support with well-defined releases <cjwatson> I hear more complaints about Firefox changing its UI du jour than just about any other software change <kyleN> observation: the six month release schedule provides key milestones (String Freeze) that enable the translation community to organize their work <cjwatson> So I have never bought the idea of an OS/application divide <slangasek> yes, like firefox deciding to embed its pdf viewing <jdreed> Here at MIT, we did annual releases of our Ubuntu derivative on the .04 release. We couldn't stick with LTSes because faculty and students wanted new things every year. But at the same time, we cannot possibly support rolling release in a public environment because my users will freak out when the UI changes (it's taken us a _year_ to get people used to Unity from) <slangasek> :) <tumbleweed> but not the new bugs... :/ <timrc> Easier to train support people on an OS that is relatively static (or only getting security updates) <smoser_> ok. so i'll admit i was wrong. both techy-geeks *and* real users hate updates. <smoser_> so lets not suggest to anyone that devleopment release is good for them. <smoser_> thats just absurd. <danjared> things like the cloud archive are a better solution than non-LTS releases for servers <rbasak> You don't have a choice of not installing updates, since you have to for security updates. <dmj_nova> Sticking with LTS *for development* means that when the next LTS comes around you've got months of work to fix things based on the massive changes <balloons> rickspencer3,you made a new meme <mfisch> sounds like we have similar wives <smoser_> rickspencer3: +1. your wife is a non-geek. <YoBoY> rickspencer3, and she's right not to change if she feels confortable with her mac :) <smoser_> i have one of those too <rbasak> So what do security teams base their updates on? <danjared> (instead of a constant upgrade to non-LTS releases) <jdstrand> people *need* to install their updates (the security updates). that is probably the single most important thing people can do security wise <timrc> smoser_, I'm a geek and hate change :) <pitti_uds_> mfisch: who hasn't :) <mfisch> moved buttons seem to really upset wives <pmk1c> rickspencer3: completely right. many people don't like updates on their system <dmj_nova> While not *everyone* will be comfortable with non-LTS among our customers, <dobey> dmj_nova: yes. like i said, as a developer you have to make a decision, and compromise <ben-linuxfan> change is never a issue for me <xnox> My sister was using Oneiric when quantal was about out the door, and she was happy. <pitti_uds_> jdstrand: yeah, but they don't change behaviour (except for firefox) <mainerror> Good point, with a rolling release, if you make sure not to introduce too much of a big change at once people are likelier to adapt without noticing. I think. <pitti_uds_> jdstrand: ideally, there should be zero visible change after installing security updates <dmj_nova> The interim releass make it viable for some of our users to track our development more closely <slangasek> jdreed: I understand you wouldn't want to support a rolling release; but if you just had to do a release every 2 years instead of 1 year because there was no 13.04 (15.04) to base on, what would be the consequences for your use case? <pitti_uds_> which is distinctly not the case for RR or dist-upgrades <jdstrand> pitti_uds_: I was referring to a comment in the video stream where people have a choice <cjwatson> Our innovations are the things users curse at when they upgrade <dmj_nova> This feedback loop is *very* important <smoser_> so by all means LTS is desireable. thats clear. from what i'm hearing here is that there is very little value in development release. no one (even many of you here in this channel) is actually going to use it! <pitti_uds_> jdstrand: ah, yes; I interpreted this as dist-upgrading every 6 months <xnox> I guess the point is that on the day one ships we want the newest software. But how to support security and bugfixes wise is an interesting question. <slangasek> jdreed: I understand that users will want newer things every year, but maybe they don't actually need them? <jdstrand> pitti_uds_: well, of course I agree in principle. the firefox issue is contentious and we don't have to rehash it here. I think we are doing the right thing still, but admit there are problems <mdeslaur> but out lack of a new libreoffice version that _finally_ unbreaks the documents they want to read is _also_ the things users curse at <txwikinger-uds> there are already eevry day updates in the software manager today <theDoctor> I've got my non-techy parents in Indiana running the latest LTS. It would be awesome for me not to have to make a special trip in just to upgrade the release when the time comes. Rolling release would be great for us <jdreed> slangasek: Then I have some faculty clamoring for a newer version of $foo, because it doesn't support $bar. <smoser_> can someone identify a class of users who we think is going to use a monthly release? <Limurx> ^this <pitti_uds_> pgraner: or more importantly, why at all? :-) (seriously, there hasn't been a satisfying answer yet) <timrc> smoser_, Canonical QA <jdreed> We have no problem pushing back on people who want the latest and greatest "just because", but with evolving products, we get people who seriously need new versions <tumbleweed> smoser_: enthusiasts? <timrc> ;) <rbasak> Monthlies to provide sync points for people who want less frequent updates? Perhaps optionally to base security updates on, perhaps not? <mitya57|uds> -1 for updating monthly <mpt> My concern with monthly snapshots has three parts: <mpt> 1. I haven't seen a compelling use case for it to exist, other than "cool for enthusiasts". <pitti_uds_> that combines the hassle of upgrading with the cost of doing releases <mpt> 2. There are high development costs in creating and maintaining monthly snapshots, and user base fragmentation costs in advertising their existence. <smoser_> rbasak: do you know anyone that fits into that class ? (other than Canonical QA)? <pitti_uds_> and makes both worse <rrnwexec> "monthly" is just a label. it will allow people to quickly describe to others what they are using. <mpt> 3. If there are credible use cases, it is possible (depending on the use case) that we might be able to address them with the updates UI instead. <barry> "normal" users never upgrade (or even update) because they're much more risk adverse. they're afraid something they love and or depend on will break, which outweighs getting something new that will be marginally cooler <dobey> indeed. monthly "supported" release makes no sense to me <mitya57|uds> we can't be sure there are no critical bugs in monthly snapshots <jdstrand> rbasak: the current thinking is that if there is a monthly snapshot, high priority updates will be pushed to it. others people will get in the next monthly <jtaylor> do transitions freeze on the monthly date? what if one crosses the border? <dmj_nova> Why not reduce the support timeframe for the 6-monthly releases? <mitya57|uds> in fact, we even have critical bugs in stable updates (in chromium, for example) <smoser_> i really think those people will very quickly decide "this sucks, too many updates" or "this is too slow". and move to LTS or rolling very quickly. <mathor> if the user is averse to change, why wouldn't the LTS be sufficient? <txwikinger-uds> if you want user to decide, you need to have parallel versions of packages available for selection <rrnwexec> as a user looking for support, i need to be able to tell system76 what i am using. <utlemming> I'm not adverse to change, I want my computer to work. If updating requires rebooting and/or critical path breakages. <xnox> jtaylor: no freezes. <utlemming> then I am not interested <pitti_uds_> rickspencer3: that's fine -- monthly planning cadence doesn't need to imply monthly releases <rrnwexec> that needs a label, even if arbitrary <theDoctor> would a monthly release schedule even give developers enough time to change/improve anything? <slangasek> dmj_nova: why would you not have that same feedback loop from users of a rolling release? <smoser_> no one "outside the project" will use montly releases. <YoBoY> question : for an install, do we start with a LTS for everyone (like starting with a 12.04.2 and upgrade to have the rolling release up to date on the november 2013 for example) ? or do we have daily/monthly images ? <rbasak> smoser_: say for example a development team who work on PHP but develop against 5.4. LTS only has 5.3. Then they can all install the same monthly and know they're developing against the same thing. <jdreed> +1 rrnwexec <snwh> surely if there were monthly releases people could still grab one every six months if they wanted to <dmj_nova> slangasek: We couldn't get our users on a rolling release <xnox> theDoctor: python 3.2 -> 3.3 got switched in 12 days. <czajkowski> surely you're just creating a label for the sake of it then <Limurx> Custom update cycles are best suggestion ever <dmj_nova> not for any extended testing <xnox> theDoctor: so yes. <rbasak> smoser_: and same deal with deployment * txwikinger-uds feels like being back at LFS <mpt> (The mailing list summary doesn't fairly cover monthly snapshots yet, because I haven't got to that part of the thread) <rbasak> (and testing and CI) <timrc> People will probably select a monthly snapshot based on what it introduces <mitya57> xnox: but people still keep discovering bugs / incompatibilities <smoser_> rbasak: i dont know. i tihnk even then they'll just be annoyed at the speed of change. <dobey> if there's no extra testing, freezing, etcâ¦ then there's nothing special about calling a release on the last day of the month, the monthly release. there's no guarantee for the user, and if we have to do all that work, it's extra work for us, that doesn't really gain us anything <theDoctor> yeah but can't we get small updates like that through update manager? is it really worth a monthly release schedule? <jtaylor> xnox: without a freeze whats the significant of the monthly? <dmj_nova> slangasek: Would you use a rolling release on a production workstation? <jdreed> rrnwexec: This is the question I asked last week. How can a user tell me (or how can I tell a vendor) what I'm running on my system, short of "dpkg-query -W" <timrc> So though they may not update monthly, they can find a snapshot that includes whatever they want <slangasek> jtaylor: transitions are staged in -proposed and aren't copied over to another pocket until they're complete <rbasak> smoser_: they will be, but that's an unavoidable cost of not using the LTS <dmj_nova> We need at least some users who are <smoser_> rbasak: why would those people not use the lts. and put their new php package on it. <rrnwexec> another way to identify a "build" is to checksum all the packages... and that would result in a LOT of versions ;) <rbasak> smoser_: sorry, I mean web developers developing PHP, not developing PHP itself <pmk1c> thing is: everyone updates as he wants. I know a lot of people don't caring about updates even when they pop up right in their faces <jjed_> Simply put: insulation for RR SNAFUs <smoser_> rbasak: so i assert they'll use LTS. <dmj_nova> with 6 monthly releases many are comfortable with that <slangasek> dmj_nova: no, I've said I wouldn't. But I don't have any idea who your users are, sorry, I find you've been a bit vague about what exactly it is you're developing <olafura> The security repo would solve that <utlemming> smoser_: what about per package rolling release? <rbasak> Perhaps they just need a backport. <mpt> "You are safer on monthly snapshot than on the rolling release" is true only if we have tested monthly-to-monthly upgrades. <slangasek> my expectation is that there /will be/ users of a rolling release <jtaylor> slangasek: so we target all rebuilds to proposed, but what stops them from going to out? <utlemming> smoser_: where you flag the packages that you want to update on rolling release basis? <dmj_nova> slangasek: We're developing a video editor for professional artists <slangasek> dmj_nova: ah, nova == novacut? :) <utlemming> smoser_: if you want the latest greatest PHP, then you can have it <slangasek> that makes more sense <dmj_nova> slangasek: yep <mathor> My question is, if I choose a monthly snapshot then decide I'd like to be on the cutting ege daily, do I have to then get a whole new iso? <tumbleweed> mpt: yeah <smoser> utlemming, well, where I carry my delta on my own (quite possibly through juju or some other mechanism) <ogra_> if we have to do monthly testing at all, whats the point of rolling ? <xnox> Everyone knows that the daily after the milestone has always been so much better! <philipballew> mathor, probably just change tour sources? <rickspencer3> mathor, I think you would just change the frequencing that you update <balloons> xnox, yes +1 <philipballew> *your <fisch246> jonobacon: what if Ubuntu went the route of creating a rolling release VERSION of Ubuntu? Ubuntu-rolling? <slangasek> jtaylor: that question is backwards; *all* updates are only allowed out if they don't break the consistency of the release pocket <balloons> I agree.. if we're monthly releasing/testing, we're not rolling <utlemming> smoser: that is a server perspective, but it could apply to the desktop too. Like always tracking the latest unity. But then again we do some of that with PPA's already <xnox> cjwatson: I would like to phase all package updates in rolling, such that one gets a dial that one can set to stable. <dmj_nova> If we have to stick with LTS for both development and end users, we'll be having problems every time the LTS cycle comes around <achiang> dmj_nova: honestly, i think every app developer on every platform has this issue, they have a branch for $CURRENTOS and a branch for $NEXTOS <smoser> utlemming, right. some stack that you're interested in. you may want to track that. <smoser> anything else is noise and annoyance. <dobey> achiang: exactly <utlemming> smoser: I think that sort of option would be compelling...and something I would use. <dmj_nova> If we develop on rolling, then we have to either spend enormous amounts of work on backports (some of which may break other things on the LTS) or just not get any feedback <rrnwexec> i think we need to think in terms of "labeling" rather than "releasing". if we have daily quality, then we can label at any interval. it's just a label. <Tribaal> rrnwexec: +1, similar to tags in DVCS <jdreed> +1 rrnwexec <balloons> rrnwexec, I would prefer we simply don't label the "rolling" at all.. It sort of confuses the issue <tumbleweed> dmj_nova: we *do* develop on rolling <fisch246> or... with the update manager, selecting lts, non-lts, or rolling might be an option <cjwatson> xnox: Some, certainly <jdstrand> cjwatson: I'm confident we can do just that <jtaylor> what is with transitions for packages not having a proper versioning scheme, like python? <slangasek> dmj_nova: well, I guess I don't see how this is different from development of any other software where you need to support a range of versions on different platforms <smoser> rickspencer3, its reality. <smoser> your wife will not use it. <stgraber> cjwatson: would it make sense to start using the priority field for the cadence bypass? <theDoctor> @smoser - True story <mainerror> That's just not true. We use non-LTS in production as well. <tumbleweed> jtaylor: ? <gQuigs> very important point rick spencer <Riddell> PROPOSAL: don't make any changes for raring, it's very short notice considering we all agreed to doing raring and there's obviously issues still to be worked out <mitya57> rickspencer3: "people outside the project will use the LTS" == "rolling is for developers"? <xnox> cjwatson: the beauty of sticking phased-updates logic into update-manager is that if told, apt will resolve additional dependencies needed to pull in a particular phased update. <dmj_nova> slangasek: I'm saying that by not having the interim release, all our users are forced to the LTS <mpt> rickspencer3, those other frequent-landing software organizations are usually making apps, not platforms. (Facebook may be an exception.) <slangasek> dmj_nova: if 12.04 and 12.10 have different versions of gstreamer, and you intend to support both, your software needs to be written in a way that works with both... rather than backporting gstreamer <jsjgruber-uds> Riddell: +1 <dmj_nova> which makes it difficult to support both the LTS and the rolling with current development <txwikinger-uds> Riddell: +1 <pitti_uds_> it's not about quality (although we aren't anywhere near LTS quality with raring yet), but about what you want to use <timrc> How many other OSes do rolling releases? <ogra_> rickspencer3, if we really do it like that, whats the point in monthly image or monthly updates ? lets drop that stuff if every daily is installable there is no need for montly stuff <achiang> rickspencer3: the problem here is that our apps are too tightly tied to the platform. no other OS does that <gQuigs> maybe montly upgrades need to be automatic? <me4oslav> timrc: arch. <dmj_nova> slangasek: that's a huge amount of work, and would entail huge differences in functionality <rbasak> cjwatson: +1 <achiang> (the release cadence, that is, not the APIs) <cjwatson> xnox: it already has phased-updates logic :) <balloons> ogra_, exactly.. make it work daily, only care about keeping everything working day to day <mitya57> +1 to Riddel and to ogra_ <xnox> cjwatson: naughty ;-) <ogra_> balloons, ++ <olafura> rickspencer3 if we are going to have a rapid update them we need to allocate disc space that can be used if the disc is full. If we try to update when it's almost full then it's a mess. <rbasak> I used to do that with Ubuntu. I used 6-monthly releases, but not every one. <dobey> dmj_nova: it's not terribly hard to support both; at least in Python. it's much harder in other languages. <txwikinger-uds> Rolling releases are very agile.. but we also need the other site.. the automated testing for that <cjwatson> stgraber: Maybe - I haven't thought much about the priority suggestion yet <dmj_nova> gstreamer is lucky in that it doesn't have issues with installing both side by side <gQuigs> maybe cut support for raring to 9 months? <philipballew> Would making changes "destroy potential quality"? <xnox> CarlRichell: rickspencer3: what if 12.04.3 is better than 12.10? <dmj_nova> dobey: there's all sorts of gstreamer issues with python <timrc> rickspencer3, you should take the people using Ubuntu into consideration... <kamal> cjwatson++ <timrc> especially the people paying money for support and what not <isantop> xnox: It still only has features that are a year old. <dobey> dmj_nova: gir vs. static bindings problems/ <philipballew> We have spent three months on this thing. It seems harmful to all the sudden change now? <dobey> ? <jjed_> How about transitioning raring directly into the rolling release? ("We will support this until the first RR snapshot happens") <dmj_nova> dobey: yep <dmj_nova> and python2 vs 3 <gQuigs> or don't release Ubuntu Unity for 13.04? <xnox> isantop: it has 12.10 kernel and X stack. So in 12.04.3 we can push out latest unity. <dmj_nova> we were actually depending on having *both* python 2 and 3 because of gstreamer 0.10 <dobey> dmj_nova: 2 vs 3 should be less of an issue. it's only an issue if you're using static bindings <dshimer> It's just such short notice. Problems with waiting are well taken, but seems necessary. <BigWhale> 13.04 should be released as scheduled, but it doesn't have to be supported <Sweetshark> Isnt "there isnt a 13.04 - surprise!" merely a psychological problem? <sebsebseb> BigWhale: nope should be supportd 18 months at least 13.04 <skellat> Sweetshark: Yes, a big one. <rrnwexec> how about reducing the support duration for 13.04? 6 months? <mitya57> PROPOSAL: if we won't release raring, can we release 12.10.1 / 12.10.2 / ... to have something to point people to until 14.04 is released <cjwatson> xnox: mvo was the naughty one <barry> dmj_nova: :( <cjwatson> he did it ages ago <xnox> cjwatson: hehe. <mpt> Would allowing and testing 12.10-to-14 upgrades be noticably harder than 13.04-to-14 upgrades? <pitti_uds_> mitya57: we'd have to extend 12.10's life by half a year, which seems a lot cheaper than supporing 13.04 as a whole <dobey> dmj_nova: well, if it's any consolation, we have the same issue in U1, because of apport <xnox> ev: apt has phased updates support thanks to mvo
{'channel': 'ubuntu-uds-community-1', 'month': 3}