[arch-dev-public] For how long should we support a smooth update?
Hi all, because our development is always moving forward we sometimes need to break compatibility with old installations of Arch. For example switching to xz as compression for all packages of course requires a version of libarchive which can handle it. Allan's request for bumping glibc's kernel dependency is similar (but also a special case). Or imagine some special treatment in install files when updating from old package versions. We have also had some repository changes which made updates from very old setups difficult or broke old install isos. I would suggest to decide on a maximum age within which an update should be supported. What about one year? That would mean updating a system which hasn't been updated for more than one year or installing from an ISO image older than one year might not work. The benefit of such a defined "rule of thumb" would be that code and packages can be simplified and we are not hold back by keeping very old backwards compatibility. A side effect of this rule would be that keeping your system up to date is a requirement for using Arch. This is no big deal though and should affect virtually nobody. What do you think? Would you agree in general? Is a year too short or too long? Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:23, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
What do you think? Would you agree in general? Is a year too short or too long? I think one year is too short. Maybe 2?
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:23:27 +0100 Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Hi all,
because our development is always moving forward we sometimes need to break compatibility with old installations of Arch. For example switching to xz as compression for all packages of course requires a version of libarchive which can handle it. Allan's request for bumping glibc's kernel dependency is similar (but also a special case). Or imagine some special treatment in install files when updating from old package versions. We have also had some repository changes which made updates from very old setups difficult or broke old install isos.
I would suggest to decide on a maximum age within which an update should be supported. What about one year? That would mean updating a system which hasn't been updated for more than one year or installing from an ISO image older than one year might not work.
The benefit of such a defined "rule of thumb" would be that code and packages can be simplified and we are not hold back by keeping very old backwards compatibility.
A side effect of this rule would be that keeping your system up to date is a requirement for using Arch. This is no big deal though and should affect virtually nobody.
What do you think? Would you agree in general? Is a year too short or too long?
Greetings,
Pierre
interesting question. Isn't it already in our guidelines/recommendations somewhere that Arch users need to update their system regularly (at least weekly or so), and if they don't like that, Arch is not for them? I would say we only stretch this support period for the maximum amount of time needed, not a timeframe we just make up. As far as I know, the biggest bottleneck are release media. So I would say: we support upgrade paths from system as old as the latest official release media, or newer. In this case, the newest release is 2010.05, so if a users system was last updated in April, that's too old to still support upgrades. There is a potential edge case / race condition when new, breaking features are released shortly after a media release. (or in other words: users would need to upgrade right away when new official images are released), maybe we should take oldest release + 1 month, or so. If we'll ever be at a point where we do frequently official releases (like each 3 months), we probably don't want to force users to download the new image if they have one of 3 months old. We can capture that in our statement as well by saying something like "we support upgrades on systems as old as the oldest release media whose age does not exceed 6 months (unless the latest release media are older then 6 months, in which case we support from then and onwards)" Dieter
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:28:12 +0100 Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
interesting question. Isn't it already in our guidelines/recommendations somewhere that Arch users need to update their system regularly (at least weekly or so), and if they don't like that, Arch is not for them? I would say we only stretch this support period for the maximum amount of time needed, not a timeframe we just make up.
As far as I know, the biggest bottleneck are release media. So I would say: we support upgrade paths from system as old as the latest official release media, or newer. In this case, the newest release is 2010.05, so if a users system was last updated in April, that's too old to still support upgrades.
There is a potential edge case / race condition when new, breaking features are released shortly after a media release. (or in other words: users would need to upgrade right away when new official images are released), maybe we should take oldest release + 1 month, or so.
If we'll ever be at a point where we do frequently official releases (like each 3 months), we probably don't want to force users to download the new image if they have one of 3 months old. We can capture that in our statement as well by saying something like "we support upgrades on systems as old as the oldest release media whose age does not exceed 6 months (unless the latest release media are older then 6 months, in which case we support from then and onwards)"
Dieter
Also, something I implied, but I should probably say explicitly: I think there's nothing inherently bad about being relatively strict in what we support. Currently, a lot of systems already have something unsupported about them (packages from aur, unofficial mirrors/repos, recompiled from ABS, ignorepkg/ignoregroup/noupgrade settings, etc). If you know what you're doing there's no problem. This is why I think we shouldn't stretch the support period needlessly, those who know what they are doing can keep an old system if they want that. Dieter
On 12/12/10 03:23, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi all,
because our development is always moving forward we sometimes need to break compatibility with old installations of Arch. For example switching to xz as compression for all packages of course requires a version of libarchive which can handle it. Allan's request for bumping glibc's kernel dependency is similar (but also a special case). Or imagine some special treatment in install files when updating from old package versions. We have also had some repository changes which made updates from very old setups difficult or broke old install isos.
I would suggest to decide on a maximum age within which an update should be supported. What about one year? That would mean updating a system which hasn't been updated for more than one year or installing from an ISO image older than one year might not work.
The benefit of such a defined "rule of thumb" would be that code and packages can be simplified and we are not hold back by keeping very old backwards compatibility.
A side effect of this rule would be that keeping your system up to date is a requirement for using Arch. This is no big deal though and should affect virtually nobody.
What do you think? Would you agree in general? Is a year too short or too long?
My gut feeling is we should support installing from the installer that is one before the latest. Currently that is 2009-08, but with a new installer release that would jump to 2010-05. It means that there is not a fixed guideline on support time. But that allows the newest installer to have issues on some systems and people can still install on the one prior and we can assume the issue will be fixed in the next installer release (I have seen examples such as this on the forums). A similar issue is how long provides should be in a package after all the official packages are rebuilt with the new package name in their depends. Allan
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Daenyth Blank
-
Dieter Plaetinck
-
Pierre Schmitz