[Tickets #10903] Re: IMP don't use correcty the selected address books list after logout and new login
bugs at horde.org
bugs at horde.org
Tue Jan 31 14:17:39 UTC 2012
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. THIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS NOT MONITORED.
Ticket URL: http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/10903
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ticket | 10903
Updated By | Michael Rubinsky <mrubinsk at horde.org>
Summary | IMP don't use correcty the selected address books list
| after logout and new login
Queue | IMP
Version | 5.0.17
Type | Bug
State | Feedback
Priority | 2. Medium
Milestone |
Patch |
Owners | Jan Schneider, Michael Rubinsky, Michael Slusarz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rubinsky <mrubinsk at horde.org> (2012-01-31 14:17) wrote:
> FWIW, the SystemTask upgrade system was never designed to upgrade
> anything other than a full H3 -> H4 upgrade. It was not designed to
> upgrade between H3 versions.
Agreed, and the upgrade task in question wasn't really meant to be run
for a H3->h4 upgrade anyway. As stated previously, the user should be
fully upgraded to the latest H3 before attempting an in-place upgrade
to H4. I agree this can be removed.
> Not to mention that this upgrade task is not tenable. It is
> possible that the format of search_sources may change format in 5.1.
> And then again in 5.1.1. And then again in 5.1.2. The point being
> that since this code, which directly alters the preference, can not
> be reliably tracked since it isn't within the application causing
> the changes. As seen - I just became aware that there was something
> altering search_sources outside of scope a few days ago. This is a
> bad situation.
I agree. Though I think we need to think about how this might be
handled in the future if there is a similar format change in one
application that affects other applications that might store it's
data. Turba/IMP is the only example I can think of at the moment. In
H4, this would be handled by migrations, but would still require
*some* knowledge of the other application. Thinking about this some
more, this type of change should probably be considered a BC break
anyway and not be implemented within the same major version number, so
I guess this point is really moot anyway.
More information about the bugs
mailing list