/usrmove? -> about the future

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 08:42:08AM -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Dan Williams <dcbw at redhat.com> wrote:
> > In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually
> > works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right.  I
> > wouldn't have had this problem if it'd installed off the Live CD or done
> > a fresh install.
> 
> Shrug, I don't make it a point to do yum based upgrades across release
> boundaries so that would explain why i didn't encounter it.
> 
> Did anyone doing and testing the "not supported" upgrade dance to F15
> bother filing it at any point?  Obviously people use it regardless of
> what the support policy is. I would imagine one of them would file it
> as a market for other people who aren't going to follow policy.
> 
> I noticed it wasn't list as a common gotcha on the F15 commons bug
> page that is maintained to handle these sorts of quibbles. Do we allow
> for recognition of the "not supported" upgrade dance in the common
> bugs information as a policy or is it the "upgrade path that must not
> be named"?
> 
At least for the "not named" portion -- it should get documented here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum

Preferably with a link to bugzilla as it would be a bug that could
potentially get fixed.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120210/3e8b490a/attachment.sig>