You're absolutely right. I was the author of that
table and this was my mistake. Our intent was certainly to target an LTS
release, since we target the enterprise releases of RedHat and SUSE Linux
and many of our users care about enterprise deployment. However when we
develop our plans we generally target the most recent available release,
since targetting a release that does not yet exist introduces risk and
uncertainty in our planning process (this is why for example Java 7 doesn't
appear as a reference JRE). What I have done is immediately remove the
term "LTS" from the plan since that's clearly wrong in conjunction
with version 9.04. I will bring this up at our next planning meeting and
give all the component teams a chance to comment on whether moving up to
10.4 (or at the very least 9.10) is feasible. Assuming the developers
are all comfortable with this we can move to 10.4 LTS in our next update
of the plan. I know some problems were found with Eclipse on 9.10 only
near or after the 9.10 release date, so we might not be able to commit
to moving up to Ubuntu 10.4 until April or May of this year.
In any case, thanks for pointing this out!
Robert A. Morris wrote on 02/04/2010 10:44:53 AM:
> My reading of http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?
> is that the table author, if not the developers, believe that Ubuntu
> 9.04 is an Ubuntu Long Term Support release. It is not. I hope
> the table contains
> a typographical error and that the actual target is Ubuntu 10.4,
> which \is/ an LTS release, scheduled for April 2010 and surely
> suitable currently for eclipse 3.6 initial testing soon or even now.
> Support for Ubuntu 9.04 ends in October 2010, and it would be
> particularly regrettable if Ubuntu 9.04 is the Helios target.