On 14/10/09 15:31, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 09:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
The problem isn't GLODA and smart folders, it's that we have no process in
place to identify and deal with problems like this before it's too late.
Aside from updates-testing you mean, where people can test potential
updates and give feedback as to how they work on their systems?
For me, there is a bit of a problem with updates-testing: the machine I
work on is my primary desktop, and I'm extremely wary of getting myself
into a situation I can't easily get out of. Now, you might argue that
avoiding u-t is essentially avoiding the inevitable (and Tbird 3 has
shown me that, so I agree), but it is riskier.
What would sell me totally on u-t was if there was something where I can
roll back bad packages.
I'm pretty sure there are various obscure technical reasons why rolling
back isn't possible in 100% of cases, but I don't think that's
necessary. So long as it's in the high 90%s then it's good enough, and
to be honest I would want to avoid testing updates I can't revert like
the plague anyway: not being able to roll back to my mind is a good
indicator of not being suitable for a stable release.
In my ideal world, PackageKit would update my stuff with testing
updates, and anything which broke could be reverted back to some
previous date or something - either by package if I can identify it, or
by actual last-known-good date. I'm sure that's a tonne of work, but
that's the only way I can see the testing system making sense for people
who rely on their Fedora desktop.
Cheers
Alex.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
