Updates-testing (was: Re: thunderbird upgrade - wtf?)
Seth Vidal
skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Wed Oct 14 15:47:49 UTC 2009
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On 14/10/09 15:31, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 09:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>
>>> The problem isn't GLODA and smart folders, it's that we have no process in
>>> place to identify and deal with problems like this before it's too late.
>>>
>> Aside from updates-testing you mean, where people can test potential
>> updates and give feedback as to how they work on their systems?
>>
>
> For me, there is a bit of a problem with updates-testing: the machine I work
> on is my primary desktop, and I'm extremely wary of getting myself into a
> situation I can't easily get out of. Now, you might argue that avoiding u-t
> is essentially avoiding the inevitable (and Tbird 3 has shown me that, so I
> agree), but it is riskier.
>
> What would sell me totally on u-t was if there was something where I can roll
> back bad packages.
>
> I'm pretty sure there are various obscure technical reasons why rolling back
> isn't possible in 100% of cases, but I don't think that's necessary. So long
> as it's in the high 90%s then it's good enough, and to be honest I would want
> to avoid testing updates I can't revert like the plague anyway: not being
> able to roll back to my mind is a good indicator of not being suitable for a
> stable release.
>
> In my ideal world, PackageKit would update my stuff with testing updates, and
> anything which broke could be reverted back to some previous date or
> something - either by package if I can identify it, or by actual
> last-known-good date. I'm sure that's a tonne of work, but that's the only
> way I can see the testing system making sense for people who rely on their
> Fedora desktop.
yum downgrade pkgname
it works fine for the simple-ish cases.
-sv
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list