On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:03:04PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote:
On 14 January 2014 12:55, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...>
> For now though; we could ask Ubuntu to support Inkscape's eventual
> update to the next version much like Firefox updates to next versions
> within a cycle. Or ask for a trunk version to go in until we get the
> next version ready for stable. Thoughts?
I'm not convinced that they'd support stable-release updates for
non-core packages. They're normally pretty good about bug-fix
I'd like to get 0.91 out in time for the Ubuntu LTS release, although
admittedly it may be tight to get it done by Feb. We should be able to
get it in via the backports repository though.
In spite of that, I do think a 0.48.5 release is a good idea.
Since 0.48.5 would be a stable (bugfix-only) update, it would be
acceptable for inclusion in Ubuntu past feature freeze, so it could go
in as late as March. If it includes features as well as bugfixes, it
can still go in, but we'd need a Feature Freeze Exception (FFE).
Post-release, individual fixes can be uploaded via the Stable Release
Update (SRU) process, but you need paperwork and testing for each
individual fix, so it's quite a bit of work.
Packages like Firefox have been granted Micro Release Exceptions (MREs).
We could apply for an MRE for Inkscape, and I bet we'd stand a fair
chance of getting it, however I'm not sure our rate of point releases
would make that worthwhile.
The backports process probably makes the most sense for us to do
post-release updates. The backports repository is now enabled by
default for all users, and backports aren't limited to bugfix only. In
my experience the process is also faster and requires less paperwork.
> Should we not have a fixed support time period where we can say
> downstreams: Inkscape 0.48.x will be supported until 2015 or some such?
Potentially, although I think that pre-planned support deadlines need
to be accompanied by time-based releases!
Since our support is 100% community provided at this point, I'd just
leave it organic. I.e. we'll continue supporting 0.48.x until
volunteers stop being interested in supporting it.
> We shouldn't have to burn resources supporting very-old
> because a distro is still shipping it. Although maybe I'm in the
> minority, what does everyone else think?
Agreed in principle, although in this instance we already have a
bugfix release virtually ready to roll so we're not really having to
do much! Given that Ubuntu LTS is such a large user-base for us, my
thoughts are that we'll have less hassle supporting a 0.48.5
downstream package than we will with 0.48.4. Naturally, I'd prefer to
see a 0.91 package downstream, but it won't be ready in time for the
next Ubuntu LTS.