Re: usrmerge -- plan B?
On 23 Nov 2018, Michael Stone wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:14:44PM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>>For these cases though maybe the usrmerge script could ask the admin
>>on what to do to handle these particular binaries, instead of
>Maybe, as I suggested upthread, there could be a preview mode in which
>the admin could be told what would happen, alerted if the process is
>going to fail, and given some guidance as to what to do--*before*
>blindly pulling the trigger. We could even ask people to report on
>whether the preview mode predicts issues on their systems in order to
>gather data--which I think is far more likely than people letting us
>know whether the process broke (past tense) their systems (for the
>sake of science).
Has this option been given enough attention? It sounds appealing in
two ways: 1. it would work as an incentive for people who want to
install usrmerge (be it because they are curious about the results or
because they wish to help), but are not in a mood to reinstall their
systems *if* the merge causes trouble; 2. it would serve as a place to
collect the feedback and summarize the potential problems.
Maybe I'm just asking because I'm one of those not in a mood to
reinstall, but it does sound appealing to me.