On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Alex Hudson wrote:
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.
yum downgrade pkgname
it works fine for the simple-ish cases.
-sv
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
