On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 18:59 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > I've been scrambling reading threads trying to understand what exactly is > the exposure here. The only thing I could find that quantified the risk > was in this kde thread: > > https://goo.gl/m87COz You're never really going to be able to 'quantify the risk', because we don't have solid enough data. We don't know exactly how many millions of people are running Fedora in how many millions of configurations and just how many of them have ever had a dnf update failure. We don't even know any single one of those things. You're kind of on a hiding to nothing there. Point is, live update processes can and do go wrong. We certainly have enough records of that. Dig through bugzilla and you'll find plenty. I can think of ~4 cases that actually *did* get reported and precisely identified since F21. The more stuff running under the update process, the more likely problems are to happen. All dnf's 'nice features' aren't really there for a system update, are they? You can use all of its nice features for doing other things. When you update the system, all you want is...an updated system. pkcon and GNOME's offline update flow achieve that just fine. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
