On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 08:45 +0200, shmuel siegel wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 07:17 +0200, shmuel siegel wrote: > > > > > >> What are you trying to say. A set of users are saying that current > >> procedures cause data loss for them > >> > > > > Um? I haven't seen anyone saying that. > > > > > Qoute from Adam Prybl earlier in the thread > > "I also have troubles with this. The worst thing is that firefox often > after such update dies, without saving the tabs etc. as it does when it > is killed. And because it dies after update anyway, I would just suggest > to put a "killall firefox" in PREIN script. Because this will trigger > the firefox saving mechanism and would not cause a data loss." > > And this from Gregory Maxwell > > "After this burned me the first time in fedora 10 (?) I made my script > that fires off my yum update killall firefox exactly as you suggest. > > I know that killall firefox in PREIN sounds outrageous but it would be > *strictly superior* to what fedora is allowing to happen today." > > And this from Dariusz J. Garbowski > > "Particularly a good idea for times when the user is working with a > session on his bank account / fulfilling payments / on his retirement > fund account, etc." > > If these are inaccurate, then I take back what I said. Well, that's not what I was thinking of as data loss, but now I get what you mean. However, the alternative could potentially cause just the same 'data loss'. I just am not convinced the right way to address this is to go around forcibly killing Firefox sessions, when part of the problem is that - apparently - the session saving code doesn't always work perfectly...it seems a bit premature to conclude that it's always going to work fine. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
