Thanks for letting me know people can change their votes. Democracy in action !
The idea is for the team to take care of the Unity matter, not the “next-name” repo matter. In the “next-name” repo, the base part of Ubuntu changes depending on the changes in Debian Testing/Sid. When such changes happen, Unity 7 DE (or other DE) might get into trouble. The LTS base sort of stays put as stable, from a point release to another. The team can offer a “next-name” repo release, but the main concern should be on an LTS release.
If the Unity 7 Team releases the 18.04 edition, it has to be the LTS release, even if, the team would release a “next-name” release.
Also, check the success of Mint and Zorin; both stay in LTS.
Yes. Only Unity 7 ubuntu-unity (7), unity-session(7). No unity (9) until 18.10 plus I don’t have permission for unity(9) yet so I would have to apply for a caveat. Uniy (8) has forked elsewhere and is not the focus of this project. Even if no big changes … we focus on security an stability. That’s more than the lion’s share to deal with atm.
By “‘next-name’ repo” I believe that @chanath refers to what comes after the Bionic release of Ubuntu, not to “unity (9)” or any other future version of Unity.
I previously asked:
To be blunt, I’m not sure whether I correctly understood the initial answer that you provided to that question. And now, in view of @chanath’s comments, I feel your initial response should be clarified.
To make this easier, let me ask as a true/false question:
Even if the Ubuntu Unity team provides LTS support for 18.04, the Ubuntu Unity team also plans to provide an 18.10 release.
That is, is the statement immediately above true or false?
And by the way, although I have a preferred answer in mind (which I’ve indicated elsewhere), I’m not asking in an attempt to advocate for one answer or the other. Rather, I’m just seeking clarification regarding what are your current plans. And like I wrote before, depending on your answer, those currently voting for LTS may not realize that they are also voting against intermediate releases.
Actually, no, while the Ubuntu Unity Remix team could commit to a full 5 years of support for 18.04, the team is free to commit to a shorter period, such as 3 year, or even to only 9 months. Furthermore, I don’t know of any reason why the Ubuntu Unity Remix team couldn’t be released initially with only a 9 month support commitment for 18.04, and then, support could be extended later, depending on user feedback/demand.
The above in mind, if you now feel confident that you’ll be able to support Ubuntu Unity Remix for 5 years, then sure, announce it and go for it. But really, I don’t understand why you need make that decision now, let alone announce that decision now. Personally, I’d take a wait-and-see approach. But it’s up to you guys, not to me.
As an aside, I don’t understand why you are giving voting power to those of us (including me) who are seated in the peanut galley. Sure, consider our comments and advice, but I advise you not give us a “vote” as to what your team is committing to support.
The only way I can honestly answer this question is to say that it depends on the developing dynamics of this process that we are currently going through. I am trying to take it one day at a time. Whether Remix, LTS, LTS + interim releases is all up to the Technical Board. I had sent a kite to the mailing list trying to follow the format that @wimpress used and I have not heard back as of yet. I would hope, that if there is enough interest and enough dedicated launchpad hacks that are wired for maintenance - then yes would be my answer. (true) however , I think I left a note in another thread that I really can’t crystal ball this one because to give a statistically correct answer I would need hard numbers and when we factor in the human resource and personnel variables it is almost impossible to predict unless there is a commitment from a major sponsor, ie; Canonical.
According to OMG Ubuntu link there is a major commitment in the way of advice, direction and practical resources from Canonical and Canonical developers uh… mm … so I don’t have a solid answer but I can say that I personally am moving forward with an understanding that Canonical will back this project in the full term. I can also say that if the Technical Board shoots down the idea totally then I am still committed to test unity-session alongside of gnome3+wayland througout the 18.04 development cycle.
Let me further adds this, if this may help … that during the Unity8 17.04 development cycle I tested all the components vigoruously on several different machines. When it was announced the plug was pulled on Unity8 I was surprised but I dealt with it accordingly. I did not see anywhere where they said unity7 DE was canned. If fact the xenial cycle is supported until 2021 or abouts. So that is a separate stack in and of itself. This current intiative is working alongside of all these factors - to leave open the door for possible future ubuntu-unity development of the Desktop Experience.
It’s all about transparency, the good, the bad and the ugly. I want air and light on this project. I don’t want it to become a lifeless dustbunny. That would just euthanize the whole concept, and , speaking for myself only , I am not going to take it laying down. Does this answer your question in any part?
Just adding on here… I had thought about kabitzers, you know, resource miners and all that, other distros worried about dev brain-drain etc - but I find that having a little faith in the ubuntu of humanity kind of pulls me through and abolishes any streak of cynicism I may of had previously.
I really apologize if I had stated something incorrectly that may have come across as misleading information. It is not my intent to do so. For the sake of clarity, as I understand the mechanics of it, it is up to the technical board as to whether we go forward as LTS or remix. So right now it is wait and see…
There is the hope that an open community will inspire lurkers to learn and become contributors. Contributing can be a fulfilling hobby. It’s solving interesting problems and helping people. Ubuntu Unity is a wholly volunteer effort.
You are already interested, or your wouldn’t have read the thread this far…
There is also the expectation that casual lurkers will behave responsibly - avoid polluting the threads, avoid hijacking discussions…and avoid voting on issues that they won’t be contributing to. The vote is not binding, and it’s easy enough to pull out which way the real contributors voted.
Thanks Ian… and I indemnify Canonical and in no way am I speaking for Canonical or on behalf of Canonical or it’s partners in any way and that the conclusions of my comments are based on research and information I have to declare my own assumptions forthrightly and in good faith.
Absolutely! And thanks much for the detailed reply.
No need to appologize, not at all! But, and I don’t mean this as a jab, but I do think some responders may be confused as to what is being asked in this pole. For example, those currently voting for LTS may not know that are, or are not, voting against intermediate releases. So, I’m not really sure your pole results will be valid.
I do appreciate your goals to be transparent and to inspire community contributions. And I agree that these goals are a great idea. But I fear that sometimes, when you leave decisions up to those without accountability, you end up with Boaty McBoatface .
I really want Ubuntu Unity to succeed, and so I’d hate to see a “Boaty McBoatface” mistake to happen.
Anyway, undercutting my own premise that you shouldn’t rely too heavily on advice from the peanut gallery, here’s what I recommend:
(1) While you should consider the results of this pole when making a final decision, don’t allow yourself to be bound by these results.
(2) Wait and see how development goes before committing to a support cycle. If development goes well, then (perhaps in February or March, or perhaps even after release, if appropriate) commit to a longer support cycle. If it doesn’t go well, only commit to a short support cycle for 18.04, and try again for LTS with 20.04.
Thanks much for considering my input!
(1) Okay, done.
(2) A few reasons why the decision point must be sooner than March, most already covered in posts above.
On Boaty McBoatface: As a lurker, if you see a thread being hijacked away --or just wandering away-- from useful discussion, and if you are uncomfortable reminding everyone to get back on topic, then please flag it. A Moderator will be along quite soon to handle the flag.
There are several social forums (G+ and UbuntuForums Cafe) for hanging out and being silly.
This site is for contribution-related discussion.
Okay, enough meta.
Back on-topic now.
The topic at hand is (paraphrasing) how to handle Interim (6-month) Ubuntu Unity releases…if at all.
Another clarification. I started this echo after a discussion with a person who has a lot of experience in this area. Then I consulted with Anna and she agreed that I should start a poll. ( I do whatever Anna tells me ) It has been an awesome experience to see the community in action. Friday I will close the poll and we will go from there.
Atm, it’s hard predict to what will happen but I am confident that we can maintain Unity for long-term. It’s the release after that which I am not so sure about. Unity team will maintain unity in the repo even after 18.04, but a release is a different matter. We need to re-evaluate our resources. But it is too soon to predict anything. We better wait and see.
I recommend caution. The project is starting, and you might like to experiment a few different things on the following months before you find your pace and the processes that work for you. The pressure to release an LTS in 4 months can make the project less enjoyable, and every experiment that you try will be riskier.
I suggest to release an alpha on April, with a lot of noise in the media to get more contributors that will help making the first stable release on October.
Unity 7 had been the last desktop version, and had not been on active development for a long time. (Unity 8 is a different DE) Unity 7 had been working well with many changes of repo-names (new distro releases). For example, it had been working quite well from one LTS (16.04) to the up coming LTS. It had been given good testing to check if it would work together with Gnome-shell in 17.10 and without Gnome-shell in 17.10 (there are older posts in the 17.10 dev cycle in https://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=427 - that was the reason why we are here today). Unity 7 is also being actively tested in 18.04 (we talk about that here).
Now, that the team is going to release the ubuntu-unity-remix on 18.04, that distro has to live on for the 9 months. So, the main matter for the team would be to keep Unity 7 working, and maybe even develop it further. As Unity is a plugin to Compiz, it also has to be maintained. This can be done by people, who knows how to code. These are major matters than jumping to the new repo-name, as that is announced.
So, let’s release an ubuntu-unity-remix-18.04 on the day, the final 18.04 is released. We can also release alphas, betas and rc, if needed. We don’t have to name it LTS, but we can keep it LTS by keeping the Unity 7 looked after in the repos.
I will be closing the Poll later this evening, 9:00pm EST.
Thanks everyone for your participation.
Results: 2/3rd majority in favor of LTS release.
Closing topic to new replies after poll close.