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?
