Atomic Updates - do we follow traditional model or a new one?

Colin Walters walters at verbum.org
Wed Oct 8 14:12:19 UTC 2014


On Wed, Oct 8, 2014, at 12:26 AM, James Antill wrote:
>
>  At least one view of the model is that you have atomic upgrades, and
> thus. rollback/downgrades. This fits perfectly with the f21/f21/f23
> release model (although "rpm-ostree rebase" is very surprising when it
> deletes your refs, you can still atomic downgrade).

If it *didn't* do that, the storage space from the old tree would
continue
to be taken up over time unless you took explicit action.

We could add an option to keep it though?  I'll admit that some of
these choices in the command line tooling are a bit arbitrary - the
underlying library and model is extremely flexible though.

>  Certainly one of the benefits of ostree, to me, is that it should be
> possible to freely move between N stable releases.

Right.

At the moment, we're actually in a model where updates are
initiated manually.  A feature of doing automatic updates would
be a good place to also implement this behavior of automatically
tracking the latest.

(If we *do* have multiple branches, then an interesting question
 arises as to how the client learns about new releases)


More information about the cloud mailing list