[19:05] morning [19:05] morning [19:05] so, ubuntu as a rolling release... [19:08] as long as the LTS stays stable [19:08] that's the point pretty much, that the LTS is kept as the main release [19:09] long discussion started on the ubuntu-devel list about it today [19:10] that's the way I reckon it should happen .. stable LTS other 'releases' are bordering on "development", the "let's see how this goes and see it it'll fly in an LTS" [19:10] * ajmitch is trying to wade through the thread at the moment :) [19:10] encourage the average home/enterprise user to stick with the LTS [19:10] bleeding edgers roll with the rolling release [19:11] .. my not so humble opinion [19:40] Sounds quite good to me. === _thumper_ is now known as thumper [20:52] morning [20:52] sounds like debian to me... [20:53] though it might be debian with monthly snapshots of testing [22:06] what we need is to select distro by section: LTS + rolling games; LTS + rolling java; ... [22:23] * thumper avoids commenting [22:23] morning BTW [22:24] thumper: now that's not fair :) [22:25] I have too much prior knowledge [22:25] and shouldn't comment [22:26] but I agree that rolling releases are the correct approach [22:26] how else are we going to avoid running out of letters [22:26] I've been saying for years that debian should stop 'releases' [22:26] I predict a naming scheme change prior to Z [22:26] well, there will still be LTS releases [22:27] like debian stable, no? [22:27] that's the current suggestion, yes [22:29] yeah, I'm more radical [22:30] always install from the latest known-good daily image? [22:37] I wouldn't be expecting daily changes on a rolling release cycle === thumper is now known as thumper-afk [23:13] ajmitch: right [23:14] ibeardslee: why not? [23:15] well not as "we must release something today" type daily changes [23:21] ibeardslee: I don't know what that means. [23:24] lifeless: there's pressure to have at least one new package to update every day once you move to a rolling schedule [23:24] snail: there is? [23:26] lifeless: it's one of the standard arguements against rolling release cycles [23:27] snail: but its an argument against something that doesn't exist? [23:28] we see it quite a bit on wikipedia [23:28] snail: people want to edit a page a day? [23:31] lifeless: there are people who want to update the numbers in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_viewed_YouTube_videos on a daily basis [23:31] snail: lol, wow. [23:31] snail: so consider a distro rolling release; the idea is that you make many small -careful-, -correct- changes [23:32] each change gets CI tested and promoted [23:32] and its not 'land in trunk, go to 20M users' [23:32] its then staged through several successively larger populations looking for errors until it reaches everyone [23:32] indeed [23:33] but there are some things that are inherently dynamic [23:33] most users would get batches of things coming through that pass full validation together [23:33] things like spam filter data; maps of the world; TZ data; etc etc [23:33] only canary populations would get full frequency of updates. [23:34] notice that most of that is data, not code [23:37] sure; but that can also break stuff, so should be in the same regime. [23:37] And TBH if you look at commercial virus scanners, for isntance - they push that out in realtime. [23:38] So, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want those things propogating rapidly and efficiently. [23:38] oh you do want that, and security updates