On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 23:01 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote: > >> Maybe someone with more fortitude (intellectual honesty? discipline?) >> than I will kill upgrade, and make the world a better place. Or at least >> document that "upgrade" is offered only on a "good effort" basis, with no >> guarantee or support. > > That's more or less my take on it, and why I'd like to use the word > 'recommended' rather than 'supported'. I agree that it's very difficult > to convincingly suggest that upgrades are in any reasonable definition > 'supported'. > > (As a sidebar, it's worth noting that major version upgrades are > unsupported for RHEL, and Microsoft rarely offers true 'upgrades' > between Windows builds any more, and I think never recommended them for > enterprise use: vastly better funded and more conservative operating > system projects than Fedora nevertheless have the same problems. It all > rather indicates to me that 'supporting' major version upgrades of > operating systems is rather close to being an impossibility.) I have been always upgrading my systems, I do never reinstall (I never tried to skip a release but from N-1 to N always has been fine for me; the only time I did that was to move from i386 to x86_64 years ago). Also Vista -> 7 upgrade worked just fine for me. Same for OSX upgrades. Other linux distributions manage to support that as well. > To bring this back to practicalities: I'd say this discussion represents > a rather strong consensus that we don't see much value in > *strengthening* the release criteria and validation testing as concerns > upgrades. We are left with the option of preserving the existing status > quo, wherein we effectively guarantee that precisely two fairly > artificial cases will work, or of simply dropping the release criterion > relating to upgrading and demoting the test cases to 'optional' status. I don't see a reason why we should change anything. The status quo has been fine and making it optional would just result into broken upgrades (i.e not blocking for upgrade bugs etc). > I can kind of see arguments both ways; on the one hand, the burden of > testing upgrades to the strictly limited extent we currently do is not a > terribly harsh one, and it at least gives us some confidence that the > basic upgrade mechanism is not irretrievably broken. On the other hand, > the practical benefits of the testing are fairly marginal: that 'we know > it's not completely impossible' is pretty much all we get out of it. I don't understand what you mean by "impossible" ... we can test specific cases like the usrmove migration pretty well (upgrade from F16 to 17); we can test anaconda/preugrade/whatever ... everything else is more or less the same as a regular update with just more packages. Sure we cannot test every single package whether it upgrades properly but I don't see any reason why we should just say "it is impossible lets just stop testing anything". -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
