Re: [xwiki-users] import of a XAR and versions
Hi Peter, No it’s not been fixed in 6.4.x. Maybe Thomas has decided not to backport it since it could a bit dangerous? Thomas? Thanks -Vincent On 4 Jan 2016 at 11:02:58, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for the prompt response and great to hear that it is already fixed! I am wondering (since I can’t find it easily) if you also have fixed in the latest 6.x series since we are not ready to move to 8.
Br,
Peter
Op 4 jan. 2016, om 10:59 heeft vincent@massol.net(mailto:vincent@massol.net) het volgende geschreven: Hi Peter, On 4 Jan 2016 at 10:55:49, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding the import of a XAR.
When we do an import of a XAR (exported with the History), we have noticed that - when the document NOT contains an attachment - the version history of the document is identical to the original (obviously as expected). However, when the document contains an attachment, it look like a new version of the document is created with the comment being identical to the last available comment. We have experimented with file an DB store (since we have multiple servers in use with different setups) but that does not solve this issue.
1 - Is this the expected result? 2 - Is there a way to work around this (in our case) unwanted result?
Thanks in advance for looking at this.
I think you’ve experienced http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9960 which we’ve just fixed.
Thanks -Vincent
Br,
Peter
For us it is very important to have it available in the next 6 release since it is a big part of our backup and portability part. I would really appreciate it if this could be done :-) Br, Peter
Op 4 jan. 2016, om 11:20 heeft vincent@massol.net het volgende geschreven:
Hi Peter,
No it’s not been fixed in 6.4.x. Maybe Thomas has decided not to backport it since it could a bit dangerous? Thomas?
Thanks -Vincent
On 4 Jan 2016 at 11:02:58, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for the prompt response and great to hear that it is already fixed! I am wondering (since I can’t find it easily) if you also have fixed in the latest 6.x series since we are not ready to move to 8.
Br,
Peter
Op 4 jan. 2016, om 10:59 heeft vincent@massol.net(mailto:vincent@massol.net) het volgende geschreven: Hi Peter, On 4 Jan 2016 at 10:55:49, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding the import of a XAR.
When we do an import of a XAR (exported with the History), we have noticed that - when the document NOT contains an attachment - the version history of the document is identical to the original (obviously as expected). However, when the document contains an attachment, it look like a new version of the document is created with the comment being identical to the last available comment. We have experimented with file an DB store (since we have multiple servers in use with different setups) but that does not solve this issue.
1 - Is this the expected result? 2 - Is there a way to work around this (in our case) unwanted result?
Thanks in advance for looking at this.
I think you’ve experienced http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9960 which we’ve just fixed.
Thanks -Vincent
Br,
Peter
On 4 Jan 2016 at 11:22:29, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
For us it is very important to have it available in the next 6 release since it is a big part of our backup and portability part. I would really appreciate it if this could be done :-)
Note that this issue has been there since XWiki 5.2.4 so it’s not really new ;) Also note that independently of whether we merge it in the 6.4.x branch, you can always do it for your own version by checking the “Commit” tab in JIRA and applying the patch to your branch. Of course I understand that it’s simpler for you if we do it but we need Thomas’s opinion on this (I wouldn’t want to risk stability of the 6.4.x branch for such an old issue that is not critical). Thanks -Vincent
Br,
Peter
Op 4 jan. 2016, om 11:20 heeft vincent@massol.net het volgende geschreven:
Hi Peter,
No it’s not been fixed in 6.4.x. Maybe Thomas has decided not to backport it since it could a bit dangerous? Thomas?
Thanks -Vincent
On 4 Jan 2016 at 11:02:58, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for the prompt response and great to hear that it is already fixed! I am wondering (since I can’t find it easily) if you also have fixed in the latest 6.x series since we are not ready to move to 8.
Br,
Peter
Op 4 jan. 2016, om 10:59 heeft vincent@massol.net(mailto:vincent@massol.net) het volgende geschreven: Hi Peter, On 4 Jan 2016 at 10:55:49, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding the import of a XAR.
When we do an import of a XAR (exported with the History), we have noticed that - when the document NOT contains an attachment - the version history of the document is identical to the original (obviously as expected). However, when the document contains an attachment, it look like a new version of the document is created with the comment being identical to the last available comment. We have experimented with file an DB store (since we have multiple servers in use with different setups) but that does not solve this issue.
1 - Is this the expected result? 2 - Is there a way to work around this (in our case) unwanted result?
Thanks in advance for looking at this.
I think you’ve experienced http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9960 which we’ve just fixed.
Thanks -Vincent
Br,
Peter
Yes this is always dangerous places to touch and since this issue exist since a very long time (older than 5.x) it did not feel like a blocker for LTS branch. On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:20 AM, vincent@massol.net <vincent@massol.net> wrote:
Hi Peter,
No it’s not been fixed in 6.4.x. Maybe Thomas has decided not to backport it since it could a bit dangerous? Thomas?
Thanks -Vincent
On 4 Jan 2016 at 11:02:58, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for the prompt response and great to hear that it is already fixed! I am wondering (since I can’t find it easily) if you also have fixed in the latest 6.x series since we are not ready to move to 8.
Br,
Peter
Op 4 jan. 2016, om 10:59 heeft vincent@massol.net(mailto:vincent@massol.net) het volgende geschreven: Hi Peter, On 4 Jan 2016 at 10:55:49, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding the import of a XAR.
When we do an import of a XAR (exported with the History), we have noticed that - when the document NOT contains an attachment - the version history of the document is identical to the original (obviously as expected). However, when the document contains an attachment, it look like a new version of the document is created with the comment being identical to the last available comment. We have experimented with file an DB store (since we have multiple servers in use with different setups) but that does not solve this issue.
1 - Is this the expected result? 2 - Is there a way to work around this (in our case) unwanted result?
Thanks in advance for looking at this.
I think you’ve experienced http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9960 which we’ve just fixed.
Thanks -Vincent
Br,
Peter
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Thomas Mortagne
I get that and respect that :-) It’s of course up to you if that’s possible. Br, Peter
Op 4 jan. 2016, om 11:25 heeft vincent@massol.net het volgende geschreven:
On 4 Jan 2016 at 11:22:29, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
For us it is very important to have it available in the next 6 release since it is a big part of our backup and portability part. I would really appreciate it if this could be done :-)
Note that this issue has been there since XWiki 5.2.4 so it’s not really new ;)
Also note that independently of whether we merge it in the 6.4.x branch, you can always do it for your own version by checking the “Commit” tab in JIRA and applying the patch to your branch. Of course I understand that it’s simpler for you if we do it but we need Thomas’s opinion on this (I wouldn’t want to risk stability of the 6.4.x branch for such an old issue that is not critical).
Thanks -Vincent
Br,
Peter
Op 4 jan. 2016, om 11:20 heeft vincent@massol.net het volgende geschreven:
Hi Peter,
No it’s not been fixed in 6.4.x. Maybe Thomas has decided not to backport it since it could a bit dangerous? Thomas?
Thanks -Vincent
On 4 Jan 2016 at 11:02:58, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for the prompt response and great to hear that it is already fixed! I am wondering (since I can’t find it easily) if you also have fixed in the latest 6.x series since we are not ready to move to 8.
Br,
Peter
Op 4 jan. 2016, om 10:59 heeft vincent@massol.net(mailto:vincent@massol.net) het volgende geschreven: Hi Peter, On 4 Jan 2016 at 10:55:49, Peter Huisman (p.huisman@ximm.nl(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)(mailto:p.huisman@ximm.nl)) wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding the import of a XAR.
When we do an import of a XAR (exported with the History), we have noticed that - when the document NOT contains an attachment - the version history of the document is identical to the original (obviously as expected). However, when the document contains an attachment, it look like a new version of the document is created with the comment being identical to the last available comment. We have experimented with file an DB store (since we have multiple servers in use with different setups) but that does not solve this issue.
1 - Is this the expected result? 2 - Is there a way to work around this (in our case) unwanted result?
Thanks in advance for looking at this.
I think you’ve experienced http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9960 which we’ve just fixed.
Thanks -Vincent
Br,
Peter
participants (3)
-
Peter Huisman -
Thomas Mortagne -
vincent＠massol.net