On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 10:33 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I am thinking that something could have been put into dnf system-upgrade Impractical. That is a code change, it would need buy off from dnf folks, it would need translations (probably), it would need a freeze exception, it does not address the much more common upgrade path of GNOME Software (graphical upgrades). Keep in mind this bug was actually found rather late in the testing process. I only stumbled into it because someone said on #fedora-qa that ppc64le installs weren't booting in Open QA. And then we got suspicious that it might be an issue that could happen on x86/x86_64 if the GRUB core.img (stage 2) was too old, and then Javier narrowed it down. So there's a case where alternate architecture helped us catch a bug. There really aren't many users with very old installation that are doing beta testing, a lot of the tests and release requirements are in fact predicated on clean installs of the most recent two Fedora versions. > where it could have warned about the problem or did a workaround. Actually, > this could still be put into system-upgrade because not everyone switches > first week or two because they are waiting to see what problems people hit > before doing it themselves. Right and that's the same with beta testing, which is how bugs like this can sometimes not even get found until after release. A lot of tests are done on pristine systems that are throw away. It's entirely understandable few people want to test Fedora pre-release on their rock solid 5+ year old Fedora system, but we actually stumbled on this in some sense by luck of alternate arch acting like a canary. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
