Re: Snapshotting for rollback after updates was[ Re: Drawing lessons from fatal SELinux bug #1054350]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Jan 25, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> * Do an offline update that includes Foo v2.0
> * Boot the updated system, run Foo, it migrates its configuration to
> some new scheme
> * Realize there was something wrong with the update, roll it back
> * Run Foo again, find it doesn't work because it's been migrated to the
> new config scheme which the old version of Foo doesn't work with

I would grumble, but a configuration file being updated and made incompatible with the prior version would be tolerated. Ideally the application makes an unmodified copy. If it doesn't, new school restore with --reflink from snapshot, regular cp if using LVM thinp snapshots, and old school just restore the file from a conventional backup. Not such a big deal.

If it's something far less throw away than configuration files being changed, it's a bit more complicated how badly and quickly the conversation degrades. But I can hardly recall a recent example of this happening. It's just not that common in my experience.


Chris Murphy
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux