[20:13] <pleia2> knome: if they really do away with 13.04, ugh, I don't know what we'll do about a lot of things
[20:13] <pleia2> was just thinking of those articles we're writing
[20:13] <pleia2> (and in general I keep thinking about things like testing and other things that are so uncertain right now)
[20:14] <pleia2> spent time making all these plans and now :(
[20:15] <knome> yeah, i know
[20:15] <pleia2> honestly it kind of makes me want to just give up until they figure out what they're doing
[20:15] <pleia2> and I hate feeling like that
[20:16] <Unit193> Aren't they supposed to tell everyone what's going on next week?
[20:16] <pleia2> everyone who can take off of work with a week notice will be discussing it, yet
[20:16] <knome> that's the worst thing
[20:16] <pleia2> s/yet/yes
[20:17] <knome> i don't think there's much to "discuss", tbh
[20:17] <Unit193> ^
[20:18] <Unit193> That's where they tell you what's going on.
[20:19] <knome> that's how the communication has gone before from canonical's side
[20:20] <drc> Cononical is a great believer in the First Vatican Council :(
[20:20] <knome> i have zero expectations that it would be any different this time, unfortunately
[20:27] <knome> i would love to be wrong, though.
[23:03] <knome> zequence, heya
[23:03] <zequence> knome: Hi
[23:03] <knome> what's up?
[23:04] <zequence> Just trying to prepare for feature freeze (just in case), and UDS
[23:05] <zequence> the plans on rolling release seem not very mature yet
[23:05] <zequence> If they do go through with it, it might be a good idea to influence the process
[23:05] <zequence> Make sure we get whatever we need out of it
[23:06] <knome> yeah...
[23:06] <knome> it's just that the uds comes really quick.
[23:07] <zequence> It does
[23:09] <zequence> My main concern is stability. They seem very optimistic about it, but they probably don't care about other desktops than unity and weird multimedia packages
[23:10] <zequence> I'm not sure how much is custom when it comes to Xubuntu and Kubuntu
[23:10] <zequence> Is it mostly XFCE imported from Debian?
[23:10] <zequence> KDE seems to work a lot on their own packages, from what it seems
[23:10] <zequence> I mean Kubuntu
[23:10] <knome> kubuntu seems to want to stick to a 6-month release schedule
[23:11] <zequence> I'm not sure why, though
[23:11] <knome> that makes most sense to them since that's how often kde releases
[23:11] <zequence> Yeah, I read about that
[23:11] <zequence> From what it seemed, they lobbyed for having KDE do their releases on that basis
[23:12] <knome> mmh
[23:12] <zequence> I'm thinking that if the community had bigger control of what is released and what is not, that would help stability
[23:12] <Unit193> Debian didn't have the same version of Xfce last I looked.
[23:12] <zequence> If something is not very stable, we should be able to block it
[23:12] <knome> how much ubuntu (the OS) even is based on other stuff any more?
[23:12] <zequence> Unity relies heavily on Gnome3 still
[23:12] <knome> they seem to have quite a lot in-house projects
[23:14] <zequence> I'd also like us to be able to do our own custom releases. It could be possible if we were able to put a freeze on a set of packages that were important for us
[23:14] <zequence> though, it's onle the ISO itself that is planned
[23:14] <knome> that doesn't remove the fact that once you've installed the release, you'll get all the rolling updates anyway
[23:14] <zequence> The updates are still rolling. I haven't figured out their plan yet, really
[23:15] <knome> well, mpt proposed that the rolling release should be for developers and testers only... ugh
[23:15] <zequence> Well, one could disable all but security updates. And if we are given the chance to veto the release of those packages that we think are important, we can keep the rolling updates stable too
[23:15] <knome> that doesn't help the fact that developers still have a moving target!
[23:18] <zequence> If a flavor can't control the part of the rolling release that is specific to that flavor, then there's no flavor version of the rolling release. Unless one considers it strictly a dev release
[23:20] <zequence> From Ubuntu Studio point of view, with a good QA system, zoning in on the important packages, and having the power to stop bad releases of those packages, it would not be too much work to ensure a decent release
[23:21] <zequence> knome: We do depend on a stable XFCE too, of course :=
[23:21] <zequence> :)*
[23:21] <knome> yeah
[23:22] <knome> but the problem is that we can't freeze many things in the archive
[23:22] <knome> eg. we will have to go with the kernels ubuntu are having
[23:22] <knome> or we enter the lowest level of maintaining hell
[23:23] <zequence> I'm relying on UKT to ensure reliable kernels. Not sure if their routine would change because of a rolling release
[23:24] <zequence> I'd assume it would
[23:24] <knome> probably affects any and every team.
[23:24] <zequence> Actually, it would make sense for the kernel team to keep two kernel repos. 
[23:24] <zequence> One for new version kernels, since they aren't all that reliable in the beginning
[23:25] <knome> i'm not sure if it's even the kernel team that decides about that
[23:25] <Len-nb> zequence, low latency only arrives when you want it to.
[23:26] <zequence> Yes, we do have control of linux-lowlatency
[23:26] <zequence> So, I could basically not have a new version released, if I didn't want to. But that's a special case
[23:26] <Len-nb> Ya.
[23:27] <Len-nb> Right now two or three years is a long time in audio land
[23:27] <Len-nb> development is moving tooo fast 
[23:27] <zequence> Right now, I'm not having anything to do with the development release -lowlatency though
[23:28] <Len-nb> It is worth while upgrading beyond LTS even a year down the road ... even 6 months from 12.04 to 12.10 was worth while for some uses.
[23:28] <zequence> And, if there is to be a rolling release, they can't seriously think that a continuing unfrozen dev release is going to replace stable releases
[23:29] <zequence> There needs to be some changes
[23:29] <zequence> i don't see why they can't keep more repos for the rolling release
[23:29] <zequence> Something similar to how Debian
[23:29] <zequence> ..does
[23:30] <zequence> It wouldn't be ok to unreleased kernels, I think. Like linux-3.10-r.c
[23:31] <zequence> Missing some words there, but you get the drift
[23:31] <Len-nb> ya.
[23:32] <Len-nb> It will mean some more diligent trying of proposed stuff
[23:33] <zequence> Currently the development release doesn't have a -proposed, but having one, or -experimental, or even many such repos would help
[23:34] <Len-nb> Two people must test any proposed before release? (maybe more?)
[23:34] <zequence> When it comes to linux-lowlatency, on stable releases, it's enough I do testing
[23:34] <zequence> But, it's less serious, since it's based on -generic
[23:34] <zequence> And I don't know how they do their testing
[23:35] <zequence> I have no idea about other stable release updates
[23:36] <zequence> knome: What are the main issues you would be facing?
[23:36] <knome> zequence, re: rolling release?
[23:36] <zequence> yes
[23:36] <knome> i haven't gotten my head around that yet
[23:37] <knome> i'm still angry about the changes in UDS
[23:38] <zequence> It doesn't help making the community trust Canical anyhow
[23:38] <knome> no, definitely not.
[23:38] <knome> and it's not the first time canonical's communication fails 
[23:43] <zequence> It's unsettling. At the same time, I don't mind, if it only works out well for everyone. Right now, I want to make sure we're in sync with what their planning, and if they go through with a rolling release, I want to make sure the flavors have the control they need in order to continue their work.
[23:46] <zequence> After all, there's no fixed plan yet, and the idea is really only half-baked