Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:20:32 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <> wrote:

Paul : did you intend to post this off list?

No, sorry, my bad for not checking the address. I just clicked "reply".
For most messages that goes to the list, I don't know why some people
seem to have it that their messages are set to reply off-list.

On 6 août 2014 16:45:36 CEST, Paul <> wrote:
Sorry, Charles, but I have to respectfully disagree:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:31:40 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <> wrote:

Le 06.08.2014 16:22, Paul a écrit :
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:56:13 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <>

LTS will never, however magically produce a "better quality

No, not magically, but by the very nature of it being around for
longer it will, in the end, result in a more stable product.

Really? So a software "being around" gets patches through the Holy 

No, it gets patches the same way a ".6" release of a software gets
more patches than a ".0" release. 

That is your definition of an LTS. Not a bad one but it does not
change the definition much...

It is merely the common definition.

The idea of a version being around for
longer having more patches in it is well understood, and in fact has
been something you have commented on regarding the benefit of the
"Still" branch.

LTS versions don't *start off* more stable, they only become more

I agree.

LTS implies the existence of a business and a support
machinery, not the virtue of time.

No, it doesn't. It may be the case for Canonical that the LTS
version has more support machinery, but the concept of LTS is just
that it will be supported for a guaranteed amount of time, and not
retired early, such that adopters can be sure that for a specific
duration they will not have to upgrade to get support and patches.

So developers will obviously have an incentive to develop a  LTS for
free... not really seen this working well before honestly. And I have
been working in linux distros for some time.

They will have the same incentive that they do for any release. Why
would they decide not to work on it just because they are not being
paid? They're not being paid for any of their other work anyway.



To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.