On Qui, 2016-11-17 at 12:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 12:18 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson > > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > You'll notice we don't explicitly specify *how* you should do > > > this. > > > That is, > > > if you're currently running Fedora 23, and you want to upgrade to > > > Fedora 25 > > > next week, are you supposed to: > > > > > > i) Upgrade to Fedora 24 first, then from Fedora 24 to Fedora 25 > > > ii) Upgrade directly to Fedora 25 > > If there are no concerns or impediments from gnome-software, et al, > > as > > well as QA, then I'd say both should be equally supported. Some may > > want to go to 24 and later to 25, others intentionally skip > > releases > > and will want to go from 23 to 25. Both are valid use cases. Both > > ought to work short of technical or resource limitations. So I'd > > figure out those, and then set the policy or recommendation to > > match > > that. > gnome-software is currently written quite specifically to offer only > *one* upgrade target at a time. Changing that would be a lot more > work > than adjusting the logic used to choose which to offer. > > Of course, that doesn't mean we can't say our *distribution level* > policy is that either is equally recommended. We'd then have to make > a > separate decision about which one GNOME Software should offer, so > long > as it can't offer both. but GNOME Software use dnf-plugin-system-upgrade ? if yes , since then we have dnf-plugin-system-upgrade should be safe offer ii -- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
