Tails

#3 Updated by anonym 2014-10-14 02:13:19

intrigeri wrote:
> We normally do that, and we’ve talked with anonym about it a month or three ago. So, I suspect it was just an oversight from his side when preparing 1.1.2. anonym, may you please fix the UDFs?

Actually, I’m not sure exactly what I am supposed to do. Should I revert the last update to wiki/src/upgrade/v1/Tails/1.1/i386/stable/upgrades.yml? So that when running 1.1 you are notified of 1.1.1, not 1.1.2? It seems a bit strange, especially for users that want to do the full upgrade, but I suppose they will notice that there is a 1.1.2 when visiting our website.

If I’m correct, how should this be formalized into the release process? I suppose it has something to do with not passing the last stable release to --previous-version when generating/upgrading the UDF files. In fact, I’d appreciate and update to the release process document as a clarification.

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2014-10-14 02:58:20

> Actually, I’m not sure exactly what I am supposed to do. Should I revert the last update to wiki/src/upgrade/v1/Tails/1.1/i386/stable/upgrades.yml?

I think so.

> So that when running 1.1 you are notified of 1.1.1, not 1.1.2?

Yes. So that you can incrementally upgrade to 1.1.1, and in turn to 1.1.2. I’m pretty sure we’ve had the exact same discussion recently, but maybe I’m dreaming :)

> It seems a bit strange, especially for users that want to do the full upgrade, but I suppose they will notice that there is a 1.1.2 when visiting our website.

It’s not clear to me why users would want to do the full upgrade, when incremental upgrades are available. So it’s hard for me to imagine why we should support this.

> If I’m correct, how should this be formalized into the release process? I suppose it
> has something to do with not passing the last stable release to
> --previous-version when generating/upgrading the UDF files. In fact, I’d appreciate
> and update to the release process document as a clarification.

Indeed, the current release process doc says exactly the contrary of what I’m arguing for here. On the one hand, I’m sorry about that, since I wrote this piece of doc; on the other hand, I expected you would have updated this piece of doc last time we had this discussion (or I dreamed we had it). Now done in commit 61c2716.

#5 Updated by anonym 2014-10-14 19:18:36

intrigeri wrote:
> > Actually, I’m not sure exactly what I am supposed to do. Should I revert the last update to wiki/src/upgrade/v1/Tails/1.1/i386/stable/upgrades.yml?
>
> I think so.

Done in commit 3d0ccbe.

> > So that when running 1.1 you are notified of 1.1.1, not 1.1.2?
>
> Yes. So that you can incrementally upgrade to 1.1.1, and in turn to 1.1.2. I’m pretty sure we’ve had the exact same discussion recently, but maybe I’m dreaming :)

We had some sort of discussion, but I remember not understanding how it should be formalized…

> > It seems a bit strange, especially for users that want to do the full upgrade, but I suppose they will notice that there is a 1.1.2 when visiting our website.
>
> It’s not clear to me why users would want to do the full upgrade, when incremental upgrades are available. So it’s hard for me to imagine why we should support this.

After this change, when running Tails 1.1 from DVD, you will be prompted to do a manual upgrade to Tails 1.1.1, not 1.1.2. Of course, when going to our website to download the 1.1.1 ISO the user is likely to find out that there’s a 1.1.2, but I still find this a bit awkward.

> > If I’m correct, how should this be formalized into the release process? I suppose it
> > has something to do with not passing the last stable release to
> > --previous-version when generating/upgrading the UDF files. In fact, I’d appreciate
> > and update to the release process document as a clarification.
>
> Indeed, the current release process doc says exactly the contrary of what I’m arguing for here. On the one hand, I’m sorry about that, since I wrote this piece of doc; on the other hand, I expected you would have updated this piece of doc last time we had this discussion (or I dreamed we had it). Now done in commit 61c2716.

Got it. Thanks for the update!

#7 Updated by intrigeri 2014-10-16 05:58:16

> After this change, when running Tails 1.1 from DVD, you will be prompted to do
> a manual upgrade to Tails 1.1.1, not 1.1.2. Of course, when going to our website to
> download the 1.1.1 ISO the user is likely to find out that there’s a 1.1.2, but
> I still find this a bit awkward.

Ah, right. We should do better. In this case, 1.1.1 users shall be pointed at the incremental upgrade if that’s an option for them, and otherwise they should be pointed to the full upgrade. Would you please file a ticket about it?

#8 Updated by intrigeri 2014-10-16 07:26:45

intrigeri wrote:
> Ah, right. We should do better. In this case, 1.1.1 users shall be pointed at the incremental upgrade if that’s an option for them, and otherwise they should be pointed to the full upgrade. Would you please file a ticket about it?

That’s now Feature #8142.