On 12/16/2009 06:34 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, nodata wrote:
Am 2009-12-16 18:21, schrieb Seth Vidal:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, nodata wrote:
we're talking about the experienced user who is comfortable knowing
what
does and does not need a reboot.
All I'm saying is - we've not taken away any option, the experienced
user can do what they want.
-sv
True, but the default should be sensible.
And the default is sensible for the inexperienced user:
Don't try to explain to the user how to restart the apps individually,
tell them to bounce the box and it will be the right version when it
comes back.
-sv
On the other hand I think requiring more reboots than Windows is a bad
thing...
Then I can think of a couple of solutions to this problem:
1. Have fewer update pushes per release - this is something I'm actively
advocating and I think is possible
Depends on what you actually have in mind.
Simply letting update pile up would seem a silly idea to me, it
contradicts Fedora's goal and removes what makes Fedora "attractive".
Letting pile up "updates, which require a reboot, but are not addressig
real bugs", could be applicable.
2. Match up more updates to a specific running app so we can see if the
reboot is really necessary at all. - something else I've wrriten some
code in support of.
Yes, this would be helpful - But only in case of non-bugfix updates.
Bug-fix updates should be pushed ASAP, IMO.
3. Having better tools to avoid reboots.
(Consider daemons, servers).
4. Maintainers to be more careful/reluctant/conservative, when
considering to update packages, which require a reboot.
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
