<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Each release of Ubuntu could focus on a specific area]]></title>
    <link>http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/14812/</link>
    <description><![CDATA[The upcoming (as of this writing) release of Intrepid Ibex (8.10) had a huge focus on network connectivity. After trying out the just-released RC1, it seems that this has paid off! <br />What if, because of Ubuntu's relatively rapid release cycle, each new version focused mainly on improving one area? For example, assuming Ibex gets network connectivity to an adequate level, the next release could focus on improving sound. Even better, there could be some kind of vote or conference to determine what the priorities should be for improvement.<br />I'm not saying the developers should disregard developing the rest of Ubuntu, I'm saying that a certain focus could be put on intensely improving a certain area. Rather than improving bit by bit all-around, Ubuntu could improve greatly in different areas each release where it is most needed.<br /><br />If you vote down, please say why.<br />If this is a dupe, I'm sorry, I searched and couldn't find one like it.<br />
<br />


<b>[25 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #14812</b>
<br />

<br />
<br />



]]></description>

    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:45:46 +0000</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:44:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>QAPoll module</generator>
    <guid isPermaLink="true">http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/14812/</guid>
        <item>
  <title>Comment from Deightine</title>
  <description><![CDATA[I like this idea. A lot.<br /><br />Only issue would be that not all of the open source developers working in and around Ubuntu have skill in the same regions, so inevitably focusing on one thing without giving some of them years to build up skill, might lead to underutilizing volunteers.<br /><br />But it definitely seems like a good idea. I could go for 1-2 development cycles devoted entirely to system speed and process integrity improvements. Boring to code, but vital.]]></description>
  <pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:01:45 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
        <item>
  <title>Comment from alcockell</title>
  <description><![CDATA[Umm - would some of the major showstopping bugfixes be rolled into the LTS releases - if they don't muck up stability?<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:45:11 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
        <item>
  <title>Comment from andruk</title>
  <description><![CDATA[I like this, but only if the bugfixes are backported to LTS supported LTS releases, as alcockell pointed out.]]></description>
  <pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
        <item>
  <title>Comment from Eldmannen</title>
  <description><![CDATA[They kind of do.<br /><br />8.10 "Intrepid Ibex" focus was on network connectivity.]]></description>
  <pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
        <item>
  <title>Comment from tchalvakspam</title>
  <description><![CDATA[I think that this already happens more fluidly via the current blueprints: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/intrepid<br /><br />People submit things that need working on, and the important ones get essentially or high importance.  This is much more dynamic than choosing a major topic beforehand and keeping to it.  It -responds- to the current needs instead of deciding which needs to fulfill in the next release.<br /><br />I think that topic based releases, in that light, would be less effective than the current system.]]></description>
  <pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
        <item>
  <title>Comment from rainwalker</title>
  <description><![CDATA[Ohhh, thank you tchalvakspam, I didn't know it worked that way :)]]></description>
  <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:44:20 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
      </channel>
</rss>
