Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Fri Jun 27 15:44:41 UTC 2014


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/27/2014 11:30 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 18:51 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> This is largely directed to the WG, as a request to clarify a
>> part of the workstation product tech spec. It relates to a thread
>> on the anaconda list regarding os-prober, and a thread on this
>> list regarding release criteria, both of which are referenced
>> below.
>> 
>> I am cross posting to the server@ list as well, while they don't
>> have a dual-boot requirement in their spec it stands to reason
>> the ability to dual-boot Fedora Server/CentOS/RHEL version n and
>> n+1 could come in handy when doing migrations while still having
>> a fall back position. Perhaps replies should drop the other cross
>> posting since the requirements for the two products are
>> different? But I leave up to the person replying to decide.
> 
> To be honest I do not see any need whatsoever for multibooting in
> the Server case.
> 
> So whatever abilities the Workstation WG want will be sufficient
> IMO.


I will second this. Dual-booting is not particularly valuable in our
case. People doing migrations are generally doing staged upgrades in a
testing environment first.

Now, there's certainly an argument to be made for a robust rollback
mechanism, but that's a different topic (and one we will probably
explore with Project Atomic in Fedora 22).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlOtkWkACgkQeiVVYja6o6MX7ACfU4ulkBM5dRueulEKKsUA2SRs
cOcAnjzpu5ctpX4RfXxoQjwb+sXgNSHJ
=2QSK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the desktop mailing list