On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 13:53 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:10:02 PM Ted Gould wrote: > > As we're hitting beta freeze for this LTS I think it's a good time to > > talk about something that gets discussed from time to time, but we > > should commit to for this round of the meta-cycle. That is quite simply > > having a process for things that aren't in the 6m release cycle, but > > instead on the LTS meta-cycle. Obviously this can't be decided on this > > mailing list, it'll require a UDS discussion and tech board approval, > > but I think it's good to start here. > > > > As an concrete example of something that could be done on this meta > > cycle I think we should start talking about technology transitions. > > Things that we don't want to carry, or transitions that we want to > > encourage. And also things that we're willing to take the pain of > > dealing with, either by dropping packages we love or by committing > > development effort to that transition. I image many of these will be > > hard for various communities. But, I think this is part of Ubuntu's > > charter of making opinionated choices for continued inclusion. > > > > Here is what I'm proposing as a schedule for a transition: > > > > LTS + 1: No MIRs approved using the old tech > > LTS + 2: Old tech not allowed in main, packages demoted at FF > > LTS + 3: Only bug fixes allowed to packages, no syncs, no updates > > except to migrate to the new tech. > > LTS + 4: Packages dropped at FF that use the old tech > > ^ Probably the next LTS > > > > For the Precise + 1LTS release I'll start to propose the following > > transitions: > > > > Python 2.x -> Python 3 > > GConf -> GSettings > > GTK2 -> GTK3 > > Qt4 -> Qt5 > > > > I think there should be an exception process that would get release team > > approval like a standard freeze. But, in general, this should be > > discouraged (like all freeze exceptions are). > > > > Any suggestions before I try to formalize this further? > > Since Qt5 isn't even released yet, I think that may be premature.
Sure. I guess the reason I put that in is that my understanding is that
the transition for applications isn't very difficult. But, I have no
first hand experience there. I would expect individual deprecations to
be approved by the Tech Board, these were meant more as guidance to what
I was thinking.
> In any case Main/Universe is really an internal Canonical issue. It's not
> one
> the community can really weigh in on.
Hmm, my understanding was that it was something in the Ubuntu policies
and procedures. I think it does effect things like derivatives, no?
Anyone on the RT can approve MIRs, right?
Regardless of whether it's a Canonical thing or not, I think it's a good
way to express a general transition away from a particular technology
without just flat removing it without any notice at a particular point.
But, if that's the only sticking point, I'll be pretty thrilled :-)
--Ted
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
