Re: Karl - grub2 and ext2/ext3/ext4

On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 09:12 -0600, Karl Larsen wrote:
On 08/10/2010 08:52 AM, C de-Avillez wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:07:30 -0400
J<dreadpiratejeff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:03, Robert P. J. Day
<rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

is it actually true that an LTS release will *necessarily* be more
reliable out of the box? i just thought it meant that it would
have a longer life span. is there a more rigourous Q/A process
for LTS releases?

FWIW, I DO have the knowledge...

Your first statement is not true... at least, not in the sense of
"necessarily." The effort is made to test the hell out of EVERY
Ubuntu release and hopefully send the best thing out the door that's
possible. Sometimes this is successful, sometimes not so much, but
it's always a best effort balancing act.

LTS means exactly what you thought it meant. Long Term Support. LTS
releases don't change much between point releases (e.g. the upcoming
10.04.1) and get updates for a lot longer than the regular releases.
However, the QA process is the same for both.

One more point to what Jeff stated: we are more conservative on which
new versions will make it to an LTS: say package X reached release for
version Y.Z a few weeks before feature freeze for an LTS. If this new
release changes radically the behaviour of package X (like, say,
Gnome 2 to Gnome 3, or KDE 3.x to KDE 4.x), we may decide to keep on
the (now) previous release for stability -- we would not have time to
fully test this new version and features.

This is -- again for example -- what happened on 10.04 LTS: we kept
with Gnome 2 (even if offering Gnome 3 as an option).



I think that a choice between grub and grub2 since I have not
heard of grub3 :-)

GNOME, not GRUB. GNOME: GNOME is your Desktop,
GRUB is your boot. Two different projects. And yes, there is a GNOME 3
and I'm glad they didn't include it in the latest Ubuntu because they've
changed a lot between GNOME 2 and 3.

ubuntu-users mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: