Sean Miller wrote: > Please don't get me wrong: I was merely asking the question, as I > think that 6 months is a very ambitious timescale to get a completely > new distribution built. > > The LTS vs. regular releases thing is, imho, rather a red herring - > the implication seems to be that it is okay to market an "unfinished > release" as long as it isn't LTS, which I could not agree with. <SNIP>
Hi Sean, This was my opinion, until recently when I was advised that non-LTS Ubuntu Server should be considered a "technology preview", for the next LTS release. This was quite a surprise to myself. [16:49] <Daviey> dendrobates: Whilst i agree, is it a good idea if we get in the habbit of a non-LTS being an 'almost' unstable server release? [16:50] <ivoks> i always consider non-LTS as 'technology preview' - this is something you'll get in next LTS [16:50] <dendrobates> Daviey: yes, that is what it is. Kind Regards, Dave Walker -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
