Poll: Unity 7 Distro - 9 month spin or LTS for 18.04?

Desktop Ubuntu Unity Development
#1

Hi All,

I need some short feedback on a topic I was consulted and directed about:

  • Do we create an ubuntu-unity remix for a 9 month period or;
  • Do we work towards an LTS during this cycle?

0 voters

Pros and cons:

Pros: 9 month remix would mean less maintenance and if interest dropped off, then at least we could say we tried.

Cons: LTS means commitment - not drive by patchwork and musical chairs.

Your comment will be like a vote. You do not have to explain your reasoning why you chose the way you did . There are 6 admins in unity7 maintainers. Each admins vote will equal 2 votes to be calculated after the poll. If there is a close tie and a lot of people vote then I will ask @popey if they would like to be the tie breaker. Let’s say schedule a deadline for Friday. In the spirit of democracy the majority vote or tie breaking decision will be final. As I understand you can change your original vote if you would like to.

Thanks - Regards,

Dale

1 Like
Unity Maintenance Roadmap
#2

If not both, then I suggest that you initially commit to supporting 18.04 for only 9 months, and see how it goes.

Later, around the time that you release 18.10, you could determine whether enough interest warrants extending 18.04 support, but perhaps to only 3 years, rather than to 5 years, if concerned about about 5 year commitment.

#3

OK. I requested that a poll be started.

I have been team captain of U+1 team&wiki for several cycles and I have maintained the wiki updates in a timely fashion. My commitment to testing has not wavered and would be glad to debate anyone that would challenge that record and KB. Assuming myself as the unoffical project lead of ubuntu-unity 7 distro I would , of course, vote LTS. I would be more than happy to hear if any would like to step forward for the project lead or if anyone would like to nominate someone more experienced with development. Khurshid Alam is team captain of unity7 Maintainer’s team so I would not want to double duty him.

Your views much aprpeciated.

Regards

dale

#4

Ok … we can do both :slight_smile:

#5

@ian-weisser

Hi Ian,

Please do not close this thead yet.
Thanks

Ventrical

#6

I believe it would be best to go for LTS immediately and offer 3-5 years support because people upgrading from 16.04 LTS will want long term support, experimenting with intermediate versions will not be for them.

2 Likes
#7

Those people won’t be affected for some time yet - in fact they will be affected (assuming they are still only looking for LTS) after 2020 I believe, 16.04 will go EOL in 2021, after the LTS of 2020 is released.

#8

In my experience not many stay on the LTS for 5 years, most people upgrade after new LTS comes out or some time later when new LTS receives its first point release. Your experience might be different of course. For business users it is probably different, but very few home and semi-professional users I met stay on LTS for 5 years. Offering LTS would also illustrate the determination of a new project, it would reassure the users that Unity flavor is a serious thing and not just some hobby project as it will take some time before it becomes an official flavor.

1 Like
#9

@flocculant

Hi Flocculant,

I have to agree with Daedra. Judging from what I have seen at ubuntuforums as a gauge, over 60% have upgraded mid-cycle (and usually by then they have aquired other boxes by then) so that percentage group would be apt to install on the midway. The numbers represented are too big to try and put unity to sleep with a 9month cycle IMO.

Regards…

#10

I vote for an LTS, even though I don’t stay too long in any release, after the new repo is announced. But, there are thousands of Ubuntu LTS users out there, who are still using Ubuntu. For them, an LTS version is a must. They won’t be interested in changing desktop environments, if they can help it. (Btw, any Ubuntu derivative after installing would show that it is Ubuntu in Grub screen, but none of them would be the Ubuntu they had been using as LTS.) So, I vote for an LTS.

Creating a non-LTS would be taken as not being serious by present LTS users. Those LTS users won’t move to a new LTS within few months, maybe even wait till the first point release. If Unity would be there, they’d move in without much trouble (for themselves).

#11

Well, that’s what I’m hoping will eventually happen. :slight_smile:

But to clarify, I think it may be unwise (and unfair) to boast LTS support from the start. Being honest, those who truly need LTS level stability probably aren’t (yet) your appropriate target market. Such users should be encouraged to stick with 16.04 to see whether “Ubuntu Unity” pans out, or else encouraged to move to a flavor with a longer track record. Rather, your target market, at least initially, should be those who are a bit more adventurous.

So better to take a wait-and-see approach initially. You can always extend support later, if appropriate to do so.

But if you absolutely will never do both, then I vote for only the 9 month release cycle. And I do so for selfish reasons: I use the 9 month release cycle.

1 Like
#12

@GizmoChicken

In all fairness , I like your sense of logic and reasoning about it all.

Regards…

#13

@chanath Good point . There are all those midway upgraders that are going to be stumped, and then there are new converts . Fortunately for our team it is a marketing nightmare we don’t have to worry about but , in all fairness, I would be disingenuous to say that it doesn’t pain me to think how Canonical devs are going to manouver themselves out of this and the squirm 'n squeeze factoring it will take to render a fix. Uh… well . .let me say that this is just the way I see the numbers so I am not declaring something that is staple - or maybe there are other numbers ?

Regards…

#14

Thanks. I’ll just add that, if in about February or March of next year you feel confident about supporting an LTS release, sure, release as an LTS. But to me, now seems too soon to make such a promise.

Also, be warned: Soon after 18.04 is released, I (and probably many others) will be asking for 18.10 daily. :slight_smile:

#15

I think you could work with other projects like Sputnik project to make a better unity

Captura de pantalla de 2017-11-20 14-16-50
Captura de pantalla de 2017-11-20 14-16-501588×1011 172 KB

#16

The recipe is there, so don’t worry about not having an 18.10 daily.
Just do,

sudo sed -i ‘s/bionic/next-repo-name/g’ /etc/apt/sources.list
sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade

and, you are on your way.

With an LTS, the team would have less work than creating intermediate releases.

1 Like
#17

Your original post stated:

From that original statement, I understood that you planned to offer either:

(1) a 9 month support cycle, without LTS support for any release; or
(2) only LTS releases, without any releases between.

So, just to be clear, even if you provide LTS support for 18.04, you now also plan to provide a 18.10 release?

If not, then I hope that you will clarify. Those currently voting for LTS may not realize that they are voting against intermediate releases.

#18

The recipe isn’t there if, as was originally posted, Ubuntu Unity will only provide LTS releases, without any releases between. See my most recent reply to @dale-f-beaudoin.

#19

I first voted for an LTS release cycle. I have changed my vote to 9-month period.
As a new project we need more testers and bug reporters.
The truth is, with an LTS cycle we will not have many people using our project. We will have to rely on our testing team, only.
We all know that the “in-between” / intermediate releases are very usefull for the LTS releases :slight_smile:

1 Like
#20

Sorry. My bad. It would have to be interim releases. I did put a correction for ‘you can choose both’. It was a mistatement. First time I even did something of this nature. I’m a complete noob :slight_smile:

admins of unity7 maintainers team - 1 vote = 2 votes because we are ealry adopters .