public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: openrc portage news item
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:03:43 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinSzNzbuK1gMm5ME4QJpc9L03KY=g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110430114643.GC20648@hrair>

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> A proper SA avoids upgrade pathways were possible that require
> manual intervention.  This requires manual intervention.
>
> Said proper SA's also have a rather large hatred of anything that can
> leave a system nonbootable (rant: including crappy SA's who don't
> verify the !@#*ing thing comes back up in a proper hot/warm state).
> This qualifies for that.

This will be far from the first Gentoo upgrade which has required
either manual intervention, or which leaves the system in a
potentially-unbootable state.  Gentoo just generally doesn't offer the
level of handholding that you are asking for.  Users who want that
kind of experience may be better off with RHEL or another platform.

I think we need a reasonable balance here.  From what I've seen the
openrc upgrade seems pretty straightforward.  The only caveat is that
you need to read the instructions before doing it.  Nervous users
should burn rescue discs in advance.

I think the important thing is to widely announce the upgrade.  The
maintainers intend to do exactly this.  I have complained in the past
when maintainers have made disruptive changes without notice, or with
notice committed at the same time as the change (which means that if
your emerge --sync is in a cron job you first hear about it AFTER
running emerge -au world).  This isn't being done here.

I'm afraid that if we set the bar as high as you're proposing, then
nobody will ever get around to providing an Ubuntu-like level of
polish or whatever and we'll just end up with two baselayouts for the
next five years.  Keep in mind that ~arch having such major
differences from stable defeats some of the purpose of testing.  Sure,
if somebody worked hard I'm sure they could meet your level of polish
in a few weeks, but unless you're personally willing to do it I'm not
sure that the maintainers are going to be willing - this is a
volunteer organization so when you say "do it this way or don't do it
at all" you're more likely to get the latter than the former.

My feeling is that the openrc upgrade fragility is in keeping with the
general traditions of Gentoo - we expect Gentoo users to be reasonably
willing to get their hands dirty.  I'm more concerned with making sure
our users are INFORMED than hand-held.

And as far as "proper SAs" go - a "proper SA" always deploys changes
on a production-equivalent test environment anyway.  Most "proper SAs"
also make backups and VM snapshots so that a borked upgrade is just a
bump in the road.  "Proper SAs" also run on managed hardware so that
they can boot off of a rescue disc without being physically present.
Most of these "Proper SAs" also run RHEL anyway.  :)

Rich



  reply	other threads:[~2011-04-30 12:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-13 18:15 [gentoo-dev] openrc portage news item William Hubbs
2011-04-13 18:27 ` Thomas Beierlein
2011-04-13 18:32 ` justin
2011-04-13 18:41 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2011-04-13 19:58   ` William Hubbs
2011-04-14  8:09     ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-04-14 11:44       ` Rich Freeman
2011-04-15 14:04       ` Peter Hjalmarsson
2011-04-15 19:01         ` Duncan
2011-04-13 19:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " William Hubbs
2011-04-14  5:30   ` justin
2011-04-14  7:21     ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2011-04-14  8:19       ` justin
2011-04-14  8:40       ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-04-14 14:44         ` Dale
2011-04-14 15:41           ` Matthew Summers
2011-04-14 16:12             ` Dale
2011-04-14 18:48             ` William Hubbs
2011-04-14 10:32 ` [gentoo-dev] " Kfir Lavi
2011-04-14 10:32   ` Kfir Lavi
2011-04-14 10:51   ` Tomá? Chvátal
2011-04-14 11:03     ` Pacho Ramos
2011-04-14 11:21     ` Thomas Beierlein
2011-04-14 11:27       ` Sylvain Alain
2011-04-21  1:12   ` Donnie Berkholz
2011-04-21  2:23     ` Jeroen Roovers
2011-04-21  2:34       ` Jeroen Roovers
2011-04-22 10:39     ` Lars Wendler
2011-04-29 18:41       ` Brian Harring
2011-04-30  2:19         ` William Hubbs
2011-04-30  4:59           ` Brian Harring
2011-04-30  7:13             ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-04-30 11:46               ` Brian Harring
2011-04-30 12:03                 ` Rich Freeman [this message]
2011-04-30 12:58                   ` Brian Harring
2011-04-30 13:06                     ` Jeremy Olexa
2011-04-30 13:40                       ` Brian Harring
2011-04-29  7:08 ` [gentoo-dev] " William Hubbs
2011-04-29 11:21   ` Rich Freeman
2011-04-29 11:28     ` Ciaran McCreesh
2011-04-29 17:18       ` Alex Alexander
2011-04-29 17:25         ` Ulrich Mueller
2011-04-29 17:32           ` Alex Alexander
2011-04-29 17:52           ` Rich Freeman
2011-04-29 17:58             ` Alex Alexander
2011-04-30  0:34               ` William Hubbs
2011-04-30  9:04                 ` Sergei Trofimovich
2011-04-30 12:41                 ` Roy Bamford
2011-04-29 14:27   ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-05-01 19:12 ` [gentoo-dev] " William Hubbs

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='BANLkTinSzNzbuK1gMm5ME4QJpc9L03KY=g@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=rich0@gentoo.org \
    --cc=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox