Snapshotting for rollback after updates was[ Re: Drawing lessons from fatal SELinux bug #1054350]

Reindl Harald h.reindl at thelounge.net
Sun Jan 26 01:10:16 UTC 2014



Am 26.01.2014 01:54, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> * Do an offline update that includes Foo v2.0
>> * Boot the updated system, run Foo, it migrates its configuration to
>> some new scheme
>> * Realize there was something wrong with the update, roll it back
>> * Run Foo again, find it doesn't work because it's been migrated to the
>> new config scheme which the old version of Foo doesn't work with
> 
> I would grumble, but a configuration file being updated and made incompatible with the prior version would be tolerated. Ideally the application makes an unmodified copy. If it doesn't, new school restore with --reflink from snapshot, regular cp if using LVM thinp snapshots, and old school just restore the file from a conventional backup. Not such a big deal

the short version of ahwat you said could have been "forget snapshots at all to solve
such problems" to not lead dvelopers into temptation of "i can be less caeful because
we have snapshots"

in other words: don't work around problems by create new ones	


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140126/22d2c842/attachment.sig>


More information about the devel mailing list