Document Testing Upgrades Between Releases

Bug #101787 reported by Martijn Faassen on 2007-01-25
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Wim Boucquaert

Bug Description

IT would be good for Infrae to have some sort of internal document to evaluate upgrades between versions.

Flynt (flyntle) wrote :

Some observations in regard to Silva contents upgrade:

ExtFile. As it is not part of the Silva core, ExtFile is often not included in
the tests. However, any site using more and a bit larger assets is tempted
quickly to use ExtFile as otherwise the ZODB is blown up easily. And if ExtFile
is in use, any contents upgrade tests not involving ExtFile with assets in the
file system is not sufficient for real production situations. So, if possible,
don't forget ExtFile in the whole picture of contents in Silva WCMS.
(Remark: Even during the officially ordered tests for compatibility of
ExtFile-1.5.2 it has been obviously forgotten to test the upgrade procedure:
upgrading from Silva 1.4 to 1.5 with use of the ExtFile-1.5.2 gives trouble
(POSKey Errors); you have to stick first to ExtFile-1.4.2 for the upgrade before
you switch. The tester at Infrae did not find this. Additionally there are
problems in Silva-1.5 with Zope Exports Imports, when assets are used in the
filesystem. Again you get POSKey Errors when importing with all the assets in
the repository. You have to import without repository and only after import copy
the respective assets into the repository. Very strange behaviour.)

SilvaExtensions and Codesources. Maybe especially important to observe and check
for problems with the change from Silva-1.5 to 1.6 (and Zope-2.10)?

I give these hints, as here at ETH with a lot of old contents now, upgrades
become more and more targets of critics. There are voices which state that we
shouldn't do any upgrades at all any more (which then would mean we would have
to freeze Silva with all consequences), because those people, especially from
mass hosting operation and helpdesk, are more and more scared of the Silva WCMS
upgrades and the bugs and work they imply.

Marc Petitmermet (petitmermet) wrote :

and don't forget that we use non-ascii characters wherever it is allowed and
where nobody thought of;-)

Eric Casteleijn (thisfred) wrote :

Changed versions, as we were confusing 1.6 and 2.0 (which were at some point the
same) but this should be looked at before 2.0.

Andy Altepeter (aaltepet) wrote :

thisfred, did you want to do anything about this? Or is there now internal documentation at infrae regarding how to test upgrades between releases?

Changed in silva:
assignee: thisfred → wim-boucquaert
summary: - test content upgrade from Silva 1.5 to Silva 1.6
+ Document Testing Upgrades Between Releases
description: updated
tags: removed: silva-1.6
Sylvain Viollon (thefunny) wrote :

Documentation existing regarding upgrades:

It is the responsibility of the developer introducing an incompatible change to write an upgrader and update the documentation about it.

Changed in silva:
status: Confirmed → Won't Fix
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers