3 ms·
To me the question is, if it's still a bug once the original bug in 3.0.2 got fixed. I'd argue no, you might argue yes. I think auto-upgrades of Docker are tot
by pvorb 6y ago
To me the question is, if it's still a bug once the original bug in 3.0.2 got fixed. I'd argue no, you might argue yes.
I think auto-upgrades of Docker are totally fine if it makes the lives of Docker devs easier and they can concentrate on more meaningful things. After all, the majority of the user base is not paying a single cent for the software. If a paying customer complains about auto-upgrades and wants to buy into their own support branch, that's a different story.
- asidiali 6y agoThanks for elaborating, yes, I think we probably just disagree on that part. What if someone upgrades and they just don’t like the new functionality of 3.0.2 and they want to go back to 3.0.1 just because? This idea that bug-free releases would prevent downgrades is simply unrealistic IMO - as another comment pointed out, why even have versions then?
- pvorb 6y agoI understand your position, but the example here feels a bit off. If we were talking about an auto-upgrade from 2.x.y to 3.0.0 I'd probably agree with you. For a minor version upgrade maybe, too. But why would I want less bugfixes for the exact same feature set? Yes, there was a bug in a fix. But as soon as that's fixed, everyone should be fine. I've no idea if Docker's auto-upgrades also include minor an major versions, though.
- asidiali 6y agoThat’s a good point, I think that makes sense. Maybe not a good idea for larger releases like you said, but yeah for bug patches, why wouldn’t I want those. That’s fair.