Preupgrade still sucks. Maybe sucks less, maybe sucks more.

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 14:47 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote: 
> On 06/03/2011 11:34 AM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > Well, that tells me right there that preupgrade is still not
> > deployment grade yet.  Not for remote servers at least.

> So let me get this straight: preupgrade failed for you and therefor it's 
> not ready to be used (at least on remote servers) by anybody.  Isn't 
> that a rather small sample size for such a sweeping generalization?

No...  It's not the fact that it failed.  It's the way that it failed.
If failed in a way that is not recoverable in that situation.  That's
the problem.  The fact that it did not resolve all the issues before the
commit.  The fact that once you commit you stepped blindly down that
road there was no going back.  Those were the problems.  It's not the
failure.  It's the lack of a recovery.

I'll admit.  Probably in the VAST majority of the cases it will succeed,
and that's wonderful, but the fact remains you can not predict when it
will fail and, therefore, you can not trust it in cases where you lose
control of the machine (the anaconda phase).  This is unacceptable in
the remote case.  My failures are only examples of why it's not
deployment grade.  Not reasons, per se, not absolutes that all will
fail, only examples of how catastrophic the failures, when the occur,
will be. 

> I'd expect that kind of response (and have seen it here, recently) from 
> some shallow, self-centered kid with little if any Linux experience. 
> Having it come from somebody who's been using Linux professionally as 
> long as you clearly have is a Bad Thing because it encourages beginners 
> to react badly to upgrade problems even more than they already do.

> You have, of course, my sympathy.  I'd offer whatever help I could, but 
> you seem to have things well in hand already and I hope everything turns 
> out OK.  Quite frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if the issue is with F15 
> and not the upgrade methods.

And on that point you and I may well concur.  Certainly the problems
with the mistakes in bridging and routing wrt IPv6 have nothing to do
with the upgrade process.  As I have always done, I shall fill bug
reports on what I find.  That is, after all, why I continue to test
things like this even when they have failed for me.  I do not give up
and I do try and get things to improve.

And, sometimes, I'm known for my "bad day rants".  Thank you for your
tolerance.

Regards,
Mike
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0x674627FF        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110604/924e0e06/attachment.bin