@wgarcia you're right: https://code.launchpad.net/unity shows 7.5 as "trunk"

@derwalter said in Would changing the "Unity8" name be less confusing than keeping it?:

Same applies to Unity7 imho.

"Unity7" is not a thing. You mean Unity.

Unity has never been promoted as anything other than "Unity" (and prior to version 7 there was version 6, 5, ...). I believe the current version of Unity is now 8.

@libremax said in Move from Github to Gitlab?:

For some free software is a political, ethical and even philosophical subject, for others it's only business as usual with the banal predation methods of globalized financial capitalism.
It's not a matter of love/hate.
UBports is lucky not to be a business and to be able to act in accordance with principles.

I don't see where principles apply here: Github has never been free software, it has always been propitiatory software and infrastructure supported by investment and revenue from commercial services. Only the source of investment is changing.

I understand that some hate Microsoft, and I certainly don't love them (ask my wife!), but they have done good as well as bad. If they want to fund infrastructure for source control without asking any more in return than Github already gets then why should we care?

@advocatux it isn't just "now".

Even after 16.04 ships do we really want to spend a month moving everything instead of...

• Porting to new phone(s)?
• Getting anbox support released?
• Getting Unity8 desktop working again?
• Delivering other cool stuff?
• Fixing bugs?
• Promoting the project?

Really, unless we realistically expect things to be better after the move this has to be a bad idea. (Getting 50% more work done afterwards would be a good argument - that's break-even in 3 months.)

I also think gitlab has a lot to offer. But...

I have a lot of experience in the industry and I know changes to project infrastructure never go as smoothly as they ought. Moving to gitlab (or anywhere else) would divert a significant amount of effort from moving the project forward.

While I agree that Microsoft will act in Microsoft's interest, they have no interest in making github worse. On the contrary, they host a lot of their own projects there and these would benefit from improvements.

We don't need to move (yet). Let's not commit to it until there is a clear benefit to the change that justifies the disruption.

What counts as success? There are two aspects to consider.

1. Getting the Unity8 shell and some core apps running
2. Also chosing some "phone" hardware and adding support

Unity8 has yet to be ported to distros beyond Ubuntu, so goal 1 would be easiest on Ubuntu. On the other hand, having it running on Raspbian or as a Snap would generate interest.

Goal 2 will surely need kernel work and is an area that will be problematic to integrate into Ubuntu Core & snapd.

@aury88 said in How could Snappy Ubuntu Core be interesting for us?:

if I understand correctly with an all snap system you only port snap-ubuntu-core(SUC) on the SoC once and then all the other application/codes, on top of it, can be shared between different SUC devices without code changes. also the code should be the same on various SUC versions (now a port of the unity8 interface and many click applications from the old ubuntu touch to the new one on 16.04 is needed). is it right or is it only a beautiful illusion?

As I understand the current plan, one "just" ports halium to a SoC and the same userspace stack will work. That aspect of the story wouldn't be very different for Ubuntu Core. The difficulty in both cases would be validating the functionality of the android subsystem.

Changing the architecture would be a major undertaking. Probably an order of magnitude more effort than the 16.04 migration.

Further, snap core support for graphics is still under development which would add difficulties and the mobile stack hasn't been considered.

So, while this may be a technology to track, it isn't something I'd consider for UT at present.

@littlephone There is confusion: For example, people join our telegram group expecting support for Unity desktop and Unty3d.

I have it on good authority that the "Unity8" name arose by accident at a time when Unity8 was part of Canonical's strategy and was expected to replace their default Unity desktop environment which was then at version 7.

Times have changed: Canonical is no longer active on either Unity desktop or Unity8; and both projects are being continued by others. Maybe one day Unity desktop will have another major release. Maybe they will follow 7 with 8? It would seem logical.

There's also continuing confusion with Unity.

On the other hand, Unity8 is in common usage and change is hard.