-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 103
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
man/bootc-rollback: add information about /etc #1173
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Joseph Marrero Corchado <[email protected]>
|
||
This is because `bootc rollback` just reorders the existing deployments. It doesn't create new deployments. The /etc merges happen when new deployments are created. | ||
|
||
If you want to save a modified /etc file for use after the rollback: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Minor nit, we're not consistently back-ticking filenames, i.e. this should be /etc
Another option if one is sure the situation you are rolling back for is not the config files i.e content in /etc/ and you want to go to an older deployment you can `bootc switch` | ||
to that older image, this will perform the /etc merge and deploy the previous version of the software. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This sentence is a bit awkward, maybe:
To perform a logical rollback, while still carrying forward changes to local configuration files, use
bootc switch
to an explicit prior image tag or digest. This acts the same as abootc upgrade
, just with older content.
@@ -32,6 +32,22 @@ rollback invocation. | |||
|
|||
: Print help (see a summary with -h) | |||
|
|||
# Note on Rollbacks and the /etc Directory | |||
|
|||
When you perform a rollback (e.g., with bootc rollback), any changes made to files in the `/etc` directory won’t carry over to the rolled-back deployment. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's backtick bootc rollback
too.
I think this is not quite right, because the stuff under
So really this needs to go into the docstring in the rust source, or we need some better way to include additional sections in the manpage beyond just autogenerating the |
Ah yes, you're right. Glad you caught that. I guess we probably need to auto-generate loud "Don't edit this file" markers too. This all said, I was poking at switching to hand-writing the man pages but just extracting the minimal argument docs from the rust code instead. Or maybe we just want a CI test to ensure they're in sync. |
Looks like you can add things to the |
I pushed a version to my fork which seems to do what we want, incorporating Colin's suggestions. If that looks sane to others we can incorporate it into this PR. |
Although now that I re-examine it I'm not 100% sold on that solution, because it ends up in the
|
I am not sure if all man pages content is expected to be on the --help page. But I can see people benefiting from it and also can see it being too much 🤷♂️ |
We could point to the doc URL... but then we have to think about RHEL vs Fedora docs? |
We had a live chat on this; I'm fine with having a relatively long
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for adding that to the docs!
Could you add a similar (maybe briefer) note to the fedora-bootc docs? We can xref here for the full details.
This is just adding the docs added on https://gitlab.com/fedora/bootc/docs/-/merge_requests/90 to the man page.