On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 14:21 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 09:00 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 20:26 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 16:10 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 10:25 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 14:12 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > > > I don't really like that people that do upgrades get a worse > > > > > > > experience because of that pointless change but well ... > > > > > > > > > > > > There's nothing that says a user doing an upgrade wants to upgrade to > > > > > > Workstation. There's also nothing that is going to magically upgrade > > > > > > them to Workstation anyway. Also, they don't have this in F20 so > > > > > > their experience is not worse, it's the same. > > > > > > > > > > I think fedup needs to to require specification of the product when > > > > > upgrading from Fedora 20: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > I've been trying to work with the packaging folks and the fedup > > > > maintainer, but right now it's looking infeasible to do a > > > > non-productized (F20) upgrade to a Productized F21. People who want > > > > Workstation are going to have to do a clean install. People upgrading > > > > from F20 will end up with non-productized F21 (equivalent > > > > to a Spin). > > > > > > In the Fedora Workstation PRD we have: > > > > > > Robust Upgrades > > > > > > Upgrading the system multiple times through the upgrade process should > > > give a result that is the same as an original install of Fedora > > > Workstation. Upgrade should be a safe and process that never leaves the > > > system needing manual intervention. > > > > > > This refers, of course, to upgrades between versions of Fedora > > > Workstation, but I think we're sending a strong message in the wrong > > > direction if we make it require a complex manual procedure to upgrade > > > from F20 to F21 Workstation. > > > > > > > Well, the procedure isn't necessarily *complex*, but it *is* necessarily > > manual. Please see my email on devel@, I talked about the actual > > technical issues that are getting in the way here (and the fact that > > we're dangerously close to Beta for trying to land entirely new code in > > fedup...) > > There's three separate things here: > > * We need to make it almost impossible to *accidentally* upgrade to > non-productized F21 and think you are getting the Workstation > experience. > I think this is the wrong way of thinking about this. As noted elsewhere in this or the other thread, we *cannot* make the assumption that someone upgrading from F20 actually *wants* it to be Fedora Workstation, even if they happen to have the GNOME desktop installed. There are plenty of people who are using a system installed from one of the spins as well as people who are using Fedora as a server (possibly headless) and having the upgrade process result in Workstation except when *explicitly* chosen is not acceptable. > * We need to provide a feasible way to upgrade from F20 > Fedora 21 Workstation. > I would certainly be in favor of having this. The definition of "feasible" is very complicated, though. This can be solved, but it's debatable if it can be solved sensibly in the remaining time. (See the explanations in the other thread). Also, if the Fedora Workstation group feels that this needs to be considered a blocker (for Beta, since that's our only chance to have it tested before Final), then we need to have this agreed upon immediately and added to the Beta Blocker criteria. > * We want to provide a slick, competitive, professional upgrade > experience. > > If we are willing to give up the last, we can satisfy the first two by a > warning message in fedup and a wiki page. What we shouldn't do is > concentrate on the last one at the expense of the first two. > I'm not really sure I follow here. The manual steps are not trivial, so I'm afraid that a warning message and a wiki page may be more unnerving to users than we would like. > > > If the initial version of Fedora Workstation wa > > a huge technical change > > > involving different packaging systems, different filesystems, and so > > > forth, I could see that we might want to require a fresh install a > > > single time with a promise that things would be better in the future - > > > but this really isn't the case> > > > > Well, to a lesser extent, this *is* a new packaging system; we're asking > > for the capability to install a different set of packages based on which > > Product you *might* want to upgrade to. > > Reinstallation isn't something we can take lightly. A user that is told > that they need to reinstall to go to the next version of Fedora make > well take that opportunity to try out some other Linux > distribution. Not to mention that it's really inconvenient for the user > and quite likely hazardous to their data! > Fair points. As I've said, I *want* to be able to upgrade to Workstation sensibly, but we have technical hurdles to overcome to accomplish that and very limited time. > We should only ever be thinking of fresh installs if there no other way > to get to the end goal. > > Beyond that, if we are recommending reinstallation at some point, it's > our responsibility to have a carefully constructed reinstallation > experience that walks the user through backing up their data, determines > if there is other data on the system that might be lost (e.g., databases > in /var/lib), and probably tries to migrate some aspects of account > configuration to the new system. > Let's put this on the back-burner. I'm pretty sure we want to do this someday no matter what, but this is quickly going to rat-hole. > As I recall, there is am option to replace existing Fedora installation' > option in the installer but to my thinking you need a lot more than > that. It's a pretty big project. > > - Owen > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
