On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018, 15:54 Gerald B. Cox <gb...@bzb.us> wrote: > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Zchunk_Metadata >> >> It appears to be a good idea, but when going through the readme, I found >> this: >> >> *Please note that, while the code is pretty reliable and the file format >> shouldn't see any further changes, the API is still not fixed. Please do >> not use zchunk for any mission-critical systems yet.* >> >> I would consider DNF to be a mission critical system. Shouldn't we wait >> until zchunk is deemed >> ready? I don't understand how it is OK to use this for DNF, but it isn't >> OK for >> "any mission-critical systems". >> > > I would say that DNF must do proper fallback in which case if zchunk > fails, DNF falls back to downloading full metadata. However, DNF does that > do any out-of-process metadata handling which might crash it entirely (but > I think we can fix such issues quickly). > -- > I believe you're missing my point here... DNF should always do proper fallback - that wasn't the concern. The concern is why we are implementing a change to DNF using software that by it's own admission should not be used for mission critical systems?
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BDPN2QAGDWDDCADJCMABABTRN3AEQNQX/
