EOL of Warty?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 March 2006 20:10, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 06:36:05PM +0100, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
> > On do, 2006-03-23 at 16:20 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > It's not unreasonable for the release team to expect you to do
> > > an update every six months.
> >
> > I think that that is unreasonable,
>
> I agree. If we expected everyone to upgrade every six months, we
> wouldn't support releases for eighteen months.
>
> > however: it is clearly stated that upgrades skipping a release
> > are not supported[*] so you could have known in advance that when
> > you decide to upgrade, you need to do it in steps.
>
> This will be in the Warty EOL announcement, to remind people.

But I used to word "update", you are talking about "upgrades". Like a 
typical pedantic engineer, I see a difference. The GGP mentioned 
infrequent updates on his wife's machine, I responded that it's not 
unreasonable to expect him to do updates maximally six months apart, 
so that doing an upgrade (if he wants to) to the next OS is 
relatively easy.

An engineering policy of not supporting upgrades over skipped releases 
is totally sensible. Trying to do it would be near impossible - the 
dev team can provide miracles, but the impossible is still a tad out 
of our reach.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five