Feature #12361

Document the removal of read-only persistence

Added by alant 2017-03-17 17:40:18 . Updated 2017-04-29 09:30:16 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Elevated
Assignee:
Category:
Persistence
Target version:
Tails_3.0~rc1
Start date:
2017-03-17
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Contributors documentation
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

The following documentation refer to read-only persistence, that we removed in 3.0:

  • first_steps/persistence/configure.mdwn
  • first_steps/persistence/upgrade.mdwn
  • first_steps/persistence/use.mdwn
  • first_steps/shutdown.mdwn

Subtasks

Related issues

Related to Tails - Bug #12093: Missing "Read only" option for persistence in new Greeter Rejected 2016-12-28

History

#1 Updated by alant 2017-03-17 17:48:00

  • related to Bug #12093: Missing "Read only" option for persistence in new Greeter added

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2017-03-18 07:20:47

  • Category set to Persistence

Glad we made a decision.

#3 Updated by cbrownstein 2017-04-16 06:40:47

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to cbrownstein
  • Starter set to Yes

Can the documentation simply be annotated to inform the user the read-only option applies only to < 3.0? What about vice versa: the read-only option does not apply to 3.0?

#4 Updated by sajolida 2017-04-22 10:34:36

We very rarely document changes themselves in the doc. We do it when some migration is required by the user or before removing big features but I don’t think this applies here. Most of the time we only update the documentation to be in sync with what’s actually implemented in the current Tails.

I would say that this ticket is only about updating the documentation to stop mentioning the read-only persistence in time for 3.0.

We do this by doing a Git branch from feature/stretch (the base branch for 3.0) and updating the doc there. It will then be applied automatically to the website when 3.0 get released.

Very happy if you take it over!

#5 Updated by cbrownstein 2017-04-23 00:08:16

  • Assignee changed from cbrownstein to sajolida
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

Understood. I’ve deleted references to the “read-only” persistence option.

https://github.com/cbrownstein/tails/tree/12361

#6 Updated by sajolida 2017-04-28 18:01:33

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • Assignee changed from sajolida to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed
  • Starter deleted (Yes)

Thanks for taking that work from my plate! Your branch was perfect so I merged it into feature/stretch.

And you correctly branched it from feature/stretch, that’s so cool you figured that out by yourself.

Regarding the naming of branches, we use loose a convention of naming documentation branches doc/XXXXX-some-short-description, where XXXXX is the ticket number. When dealing with many branches I find the short description useful to recognize which branch I’m dealing with (as I don’t have all the ticket numbers in mind, thankfully!). But if you prefer it differently, I’ll deal with it.

I’m reassigning to intrigeri and removing the Easy flag because I see mentions of this feature the design documentation.

intrigeri: Will you take care of it? Shall I reassign to Alan? Try to do it myself?

#7 Updated by intrigeri 2017-04-29 09:25:14

  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Dev Needed
  • Type of work changed from End-user documentation to Contributors documentation

I’ll do it.

#8 Updated by intrigeri 2017-04-29 09:29:46

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • % Done changed from 50 to 100

Applied in changeset commit:6ce90a372d4eaa6c5987b85150f739bffbd934ba.

#9 Updated by intrigeri 2017-04-29 09:30:16

  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
  • Target version changed from Tails_3.0 to Tails_3.0~rc1
  • QA Check deleted (Dev Needed)