Lock to "current release" enabled by default from 7.5


(Gabriel GHEORGHIU) #61

“Return to Innocence” :wink:


(Rob Bosch) #62

Guinea pig? :yum:


(Michael Träumner) #64

Yes of course, but I think at softwarecenter it’s a little bit more clear.


(Alessio Fattorini) #65

We should choice terms that are clear for the man in the street.
I would suggest:

  • Conservative (more stable, less updated)
  • Bleeding Edge (upstream compliant, less stable)

image


(Davide Principi) #66

…living on the Bleeding edge:


(Markus Neuberger) #67

I prefer “solid”, “stable” or “(well) balanced” instead of “conservative”.


(Davide Principi) #68

“Bleeding edge” is as stable as “conservative”: it only needs more care and skills. It is more balanced than conservative IMO, because it offers the latest version of every package.


(Michael Kicks) #69

If it’s stable, why ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’ where choosen as definition into topic name?
Or why there are bugs blocking the upgrade process?
Even “bleeding edge” definition do not exactly seem to mean “Rock solid”…
Please…

Don’t call it stable


(Markus Neuberger) #70

My intention was to replace conservative as it has a touch of old-fashioned. Seems hard to find the right wording…


(Davide Principi) #71

Yes too hard! Why not use the same naming scheme of TLS policy page? It’s just a number :slight_smile:

  • Policy 1
  • Policy 2

If you prefer

  • Red pill
  • Blue pill

As alternative we can change the way we choose the boolean release lock state: checkbox instead of radio button …so we need to decide just ONE name :blush:


(James Nesbitt) #72

If one is going to use “bleeding edge”, then I feel that “conservative” is a bit more appropriate than “stable”. “solid” or “(well) balanced” just doesn’t seem to fit well and could be open to misunderstanding.


(Stefano Zamboni) #73

you’re missing some points, I’m afraid


(Davide Principi) #74

It seems they are misleading too… I’m a devellopper: let’s name them after what they do!

  • Unlocked
  • Locked


(Alessio Fattorini) #75

That’s a good point.
What are you locking? The Update Policy? The version? I guess you need to say it


(James Nesbitt) #76

Oooohhh! Very interesting point and train of thought…

I like the Locked/Unlocked idea, however a bit of clarification may be needed. I may come back with some suggestions unless someone beats me to it first.


(Davide Principi) #77

Software update policy: locked/unlocked. What is locked is the origin of the updates, so we can change the label to

Software update origin:

  • Unlocked - Consider updates to version 7 from all available software repositories
  • Locked - Limit updates to repositories specific to version 7.X.Y. Other repositories are considered only when new modules are installed

Please @bwdjames help me to improve those sentences (and English too)!


(James Nesbitt) #78

Unlocked - Consider updates from all available software repositories

Think the Locked one is okay, will ponder over it on the weekend.


(Giacomo Sanchietti) #79

Everything is ready, but changes are quite big so @davidep has written a huge an detailed list of test cases:

Now we need help from all of you to test and release it soon!


(Davide Principi) #80

Yes please review also this pull request for the Software center admin’s guide

https://github.com/DavidePrincipi/docs/blob/e8b222a7dad1dca05d526fe9613216b6261d236a/administrator-manual/en/packages.rst

/cc @docs_team


(Davide Principi) #81

This morning @giacomo and I introduced a cron job that can switch the software origin automatically when a new CentOS distribution release is available /cc @dz00te. I updated the admin’s guide PR accordingly:

https://github.com/NethServer/docs/pull/319/commits/f21f0153915e7ceb47fa09427dc27be8bfa72a87

See also this change proposal to the Software center labels:

https://github.com/NethServer/nethserver-base/pull/118/files

Previews:

image



Please comment!