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]

 




Am 26.01.2014 01:54, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> 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

the short version of ahwat you said could have been "forget snapshots at all to solve
such problems" to not lead dvelopers into temptation of "i can be less caeful because
we have snapshots"

in other words: don't work around problems by create new ones	


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
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