Øystein Grøvlen wrote: > Kathey Marsden wrote: > >> First of all I want to say that there is a great dependence on soft >> upgrade in the installed user base so if the community decided to >> deprecate soft upgrade (which I am strongly against) it would need to be >> just that a deprecation and some solution to the current usage models >> would need to be found in advance. So this is not a 10.2 discussion. > > > I am not suggesting that we should deprecate soft upgrade. I was just > reacting to your claims that soft upgrade was providing a lot of > wonderful stuff that is actually provided by automatic upgrade (soft or > hard). > > I think it is good to have soft upgrade as part of an upgrade path in > order to be able to revert to the previous version in case of problems. > I am bit more concerned about recommending users to run in soft upgrade > more or less permanently since this mode is much less tested than a > standard configuration.
The design of the soft upgrade is meant to be low-risk. It's a mode where certain operations are disabled.
