On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Isaac Dupree < ml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/22/2011 02:41 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote: > >> I using testing / staging repos does this already: you try out >> [testing], if it doesn't work, you disable it and run 'pacman -Suu'. >> Would using different sync dbs and a separate cache turned into a >> local repo make it easy enough to be practical? >> > > Also, pacsnap[1] does a good enough job for me. Which is to take maybe > 70% of the risk out of upgrading -- sure, a reversion won't work all the > time, but I need it rarely enough that the low overhead of pacsnap is more > convenient for me than the risk of living with a partly-broken system until > it's fixed upstream is bad. > > That being said, if someone polishes btrfs snapshots, I might use that > instead. (Once I switch to btrfs, that is.) > > [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/**packages.php?ID=34290<http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34290> > People keep bringing up btrfs snapshots but no one's mentioned LVM snapshots. Is it not worthwhile? I've been meaning to try it out for a while now.
