Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge bugfix/safer-persisten…

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Author: sajolida
Date:  
To: The Tails public development discussion list
Subject: Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge bugfix/safer-persistence (0.22 iteration)
Alan:
>> In doc/first_steps/persistence/upgrade, in the first section
>> ("Automatic upgrade"), the first bullet point is "If you have skipped
>> the Tails 0.21 upgrade and have upgraded to a newer version", which
>> points to how to the 0.21 upgrade process (maybe it's not *that* clear
>> there, I don't know). We could be make the "have skipped 0.21" case
>> higher priority on this page somehow, but it would make the doc less
>> clear for people going the 0.20.1 -> 0.21 way, that is basically the
>> same people, one hour later, so I'm not sure we gain anything.
>>
>> Frankly, I don't think I'm able to do much better. sajolida, if you
>> feel this should be improved and see how, you're much welcome
>> (deadline: December 7).


I changed the paragraph on the use case of a skipped upgrade for the
following in commit 842d459:

a. **If you skipped the upgrade to Tails 0.21 and upgraded directly
to Tails 0.22 or later**, then install [Tails
0.21](http://dl.amnesia.boum.org/tails/obsolete/) to run the
automatic upgrade as described above, or follow the instructions to
[[manually copy your persistent data to a new device|copy]].
For security reasons the automatic upgrade is not available in Tails
0.22 or later.

> I think the text is basically right, but the presentation trigger my
> eyes on the bold parts of the ordered list, not on the introductive
> paragraph, which contains the best solution. I suggest:
>
>     We designed a **migration mechanism** that allows, in most cases,
>     **to upgrade automatically to those more secure persistent volume
>     settings**. To do this upgrade:

>
>     0. **start Tails 0.21**
>     1. **enable persistence** without the read-only option. If the
>        upgrade is successful, Tails starts as usual and no notification
>        appears. This upgrade is done once and for all. Activating the
>        read-only option prevents Tails from starting correctly until the
>        upgrade is made.
>     2. If the upgrade is successful upgrade to the latest Tails

>
>     But this automatic [...]


Great proposal, those were actually steps to follow that I buried in a
paragraph. I implemented it with 2d71744. It's a shame that we didn't
had that for Tails 0.21 already.

> Then, keep the text but transform the ordred list to an unordered one
> (so it looks less like the order of actions to perform).


Yes, list that are not sequences should not be numbered. Fixed.

>> Unless I missed something, the doc page you're pointed to in this case
>> (doc/first_steps/persistence/recover_insecure) tells you to do *one*
>> thing:
>>
>> To enable again your persistent volume, follow the instructions to
>> [[manually copy your persistent data to a new
>> device|copy_to_a_new_device]].
>>
>> Incidentally, it doesn't tell you "alternatively, feel free to do
>> whatever you want instead, we'll take care of the consequences of
>> every possible creative action you might take, and we promise we'll
>> make your life as painless as possible" :)
>>
>> In the described situation, Tails is in a broken state. We're pointing
>> the user at documentation that explains how to repair it. If one does
>> not follow these instructions, no wonder Tails is still broken (and
>> protests in a different way, I admit that may be confusing). I don't
>> think we should even try to support this case, and I don't find it
>> a good use of my time to improve it. So, I beg to strongly disagree
>> with your "it should be fixed at least for next release". Fair enough?
>>
> OK


Me too.

Does that need a new merge or something?