Issue information
-
#035708
-
Not a Bug
-
2.3.0 Beta 1
-
-
-
0 - None Assigned
Issue Confirmations
-
Yes (0)No (0)
2
steps to reproduce... install 3.2.3 IPB 2.2IPC
touch nothing.
upgrade to 3.3.0/2.3...
if index.html exists, shouldn't the demo index page... install under a different filename anyway?
touch nothing.
upgrade to 3.3.0/2.3...
if index.html exists, shouldn't the demo index page... install under a different filename anyway?
Can you describe what exactly the issue that occurred was?
bfarber, on 03 February 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:
Can you describe what exactly the issue that occurred was?
Yes, the upgrader is not going to insert the new default homepage. We don't want to change around people's existing sites. The portal is meant to help new customers get off the ground.
I'm not sure how we could possibly install the portal for upgrading users, outside of asking them to provide a name for the page. Even then you have the possibility of block key conflicts which would be very difficult to work around.
I'm not sure how we could possibly install the portal for upgrading users, outside of asking them to provide a name for the page. Even then you have the possibility of block key conflicts which would be very difficult to work around.
...ouch? http://community.inv...ate-issues-r628 another one of these for the portal page then?
no blocks or page stock... confusing upgrade, this, lol.
no blocks or page stock... confusing upgrade, this, lol.
I'm not following. Not installing a page (that the user can easily recreate themselves - I simply did some clicking in the ACP) does not cause warnings and other errors upon upgrade. The KB article described how to rebuild templates following an upgrade, something the IP.Content 2.3.0 upgrader can do automatically.
We cannot move around or change an existing installation arbitrarily, including installing a new homepage. Nor is it easy to install the new homepage as something random (I would argue it would also be pointless since most admins would never even notice the new page, not being linked or accessible by default if we installed it with a random name), especially given what I already said about block keys.
We cannot move around or change an existing installation arbitrarily, including installing a new homepage. Nor is it easy to install the new homepage as something random (I would argue it would also be pointless since most admins would never even notice the new page, not being linked or accessible by default if we installed it with a random name), especially given what I already said about block keys.
bfarber, on 03 February 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:
The KB article described how to rebuild templates following an upgrade, something the IP.Content 2.3.0 upgrader can do automatically.
i selected to have it revert my templates in the upgrade, and articles front-page template held customization, as did the database stock templates.... revert template works handily though
maybe a caching issue? i "see" no difference in the markup between the new and what is there... but am getting funny things until i save and reload the template.... 
like comments as a link Array .... dunno... just odd. 
.... dunno... just odd. That's a separate issue which I can test. I'll open a new bug report (each separate issue should be submitted as a separate report).
bfarber, on 03 February 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:
I'm not following. Not installing a page (that the user can easily recreate themselves - I simply did some clicking in the ACP) does not cause warnings and other errors upon upgrade. The KB article described how to rebuild templates following an upgrade, something the IP.Content 2.3.0 upgrader can do automatically.We cannot move around or change an existing installation arbitrarily, including installing a new homepage. Nor is it easy to install the new homepage as something random (I would argue it would also be pointless since most admins would never even notice the new page, not being linked or accessible by default if we installed it with a random name), especially given what I already said about block keys.
Well for people like me whom are still learning IP.Content how would I know of it not being install when even in the blog it was not stated that this would be an issue. Why not added to the code so that it will added a HTML file with said data or example IF the user wants it with a random list of numbers and letters so it will not screw up any current page they have currently. Example 9VK290DU3IO.html ? Having a sample to go off will GREATLY help me and others our I would think, then just saying it can be simply added. (Which I don't think floats that boat.)
It's simply not that easy, and for existing sites it is typically not necessary. There may be a handful of sites that have Content installed already but not really used, but most sites that will have content installed and will upgrade do not need us to create their content or pages for them.
I intend to explore a tutorial describing how we created the default portal page closer to release for those that really feel they need to create the same page we did. All the default portal page is, is a few blocks that were embedded into an index.html page.
I intend to explore a tutorial describing how we created the default portal page closer to release for those that really feel they need to create the same page we did. All the default portal page is, is a few blocks that were embedded into an index.html page.
0 user(s) are reading this issue
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
