Update the release documentation

[immae]

Motivation for this change

See this comment on the issue: #84633 (comment)

Things done

• Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
• Built on platform(s)
  • NixOS
  • macOS
  • other Linux distributions
• Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
• Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
• Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
• Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[immae]

cc @arianvp @emilazy @m1cr0man @aanderse @flokli

[arianvp]

simp_le state and lego state are stored in different directories no? or at different places? So rollback should work? if that isn't the case anymore than that's a new bug.

[arianvp]

We dont say it's backwards compatible. We just say that rollback is an option. Those are different things

[immae]

Ah yes, if that’s what you mean for "rollback". However:

• a new account will be recreated by lego anwyay, he won’t be able to use the one created by simp_le
• lego will generate new certificates when switching from simp-le to lego the first time, because it doesn’t use the content of /var/lib/acme/your_cert to make its decision. Switching back I don’t know (that will depend on how simp-le computes if a certificate is too old)

[arianvp]

We mean rollback in the sense of nixos-rebuild switch --rollback. i.e. the switch to lego doesn't destroy any simp_le state so if something goes bad with upgrade, you can go back to 19.09 and figure out what went wrong

[immae]

Ok, I’ll put back the last line then

[immae]

Changed

[arianvp]

@GrahamcOfBorg test acme

[m1cr0man]

LGTM :) I'm a fan of well worded options, in hope that if the agent changes we can reuse/maintain them.

[flokli]

Thanks! Maybe future work, but can we test this feature in a VM test?

[immae]

Thanks! Maybe future work, but can we test this feature in a VM test?

I agree. I already tried to understand how tests worked, but I’m not fully at ease with the language yet, it’s still new to me. If you think it’s necessary for this PR it may take me a bit longer to manage to write it (or someone else to write it)

[flokli]

@immae what do you think about forward-porting the release notes from #85370 into master, and picking this up once the test refactorings took place?

cc @emilazy

[immae]

@flokli : done

[flokli]

forward-ported from #85370 into master as 3dbd3f2, closing here.