Upgraded to 2.0.9, but Sources/Subs-Post.php still 2.0.8?

[statusjpn]

Hello there,

I have just updated to 2.0.9 using the package manager and everything went well as expected (thank you SMF team).

However, i ran the "Detailed Version Check" just to be sure, and realized that under "Sources", sub folder Subs-Post.php, my version is still 2.0.8 instead of the current 2.0.9.

Other than that, every other version checks out and is updated to the most current version.

Is anyone else facing this issue as well? Would appreciate some help.

Thanks!

Regards.

[statusjpn]

Have attached some images to show what i mean.

[kat]

Hmmm...

Looking at the update files, I see this, in smf_2-0-9_patch.xml:

Code Select Expand

<file name="$sourcedir/Subs-Post.php">
<operation error="ignore"><!-- This is only broken on some 2.0.8 installs... -->


Maybe your is one of those that isn't broken...

I'm afraid that I don't know the specifics, of this. So, I'll hope a dev sees this and can comment. If nothing happens, for a few days, feel free to bump the topic and I/we can give the devs a nudge.

[tjbalon]

We have the exact same theme as you! Funny-

Anyway manually upload the file,it will update accordingly and fix any errors.

http://download.simplemachines.org/

[statusjpn]

Thanks for the reply guys.

I saw in another thread that a developer has stated that this is a bug with the update and nothing to worry about.

Said thread here: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=528540.0

Once again, i appreciate the prompt response.

Cheers!

[kat]

OO! I hadn't seen that!

Actually, I may have done and forgot about it.

Old age does that, to you.

Bit shabby that it's not been fixed, really...

[Kindred]

K@... How would that have been fixed?   We have not released a version since 2.0.9, so there is no way it could have been addressed without screwing up with multiple released of the same release.

[kat]

By correcting the current one, so that people downloading it, now, don't have the problem?

Radical, I know...

[Illori]

By correcting the current one, so that people downloading it, now, don't have the problem?

Radical, I know...

then you get into an issue we have faced before, we dont know which patch anyone has installed and we still have to patch it in the next version so everyone gets the patch.

[kat]

So, anyone downloading, now, gets buggy stuff?

Good plan.

[Arantor]

It's the better plan here, actually.

[kat]

Really? Seems weird, to me.

Still, what do I know, eh?

[Arantor]

Illori is absolutely correct: if it were fixed in 2.0.9, that would make two different versions of 2.0.9 that would need to be taken care of in 2.0.10 as and when that comes out. Much better to have one thing that is fixed rather than trying to cope with two different things. Bear in mind we already had this with 2.0.7 and 2.0.8

[kat]

Oh, I agree, as it 'appens.

What baffles me, is why this hasn't been patched, already,

I've seen the arguments and stuff. Personally, I feel that any bug should be squished and squished quickly.

Seems I'm in a minority of one, though.

Life's a beach, huh?

[Arantor]

Because you can't patch it without making 2.0.10 or else you have the 'two versions thing' going on...

[kat]

I meant for the patch to be v2.0.10.

Or, perhaps, produce it as a mod, so that it could be linked to, in circumstances such as this one.

Actually, my own thought is that we should release things in a way that M$oft do their "Service packs", without even bothering with version numbers. Put an announcement in Package Manager and let people install it, as they desire. No need for version numbers, then.

Still...

[Illori]

even without a version number we would still need to check if users have it installed and that will cause a headache moving forward.

[Arantor]

Microsoft have version numbers, you just can't see them

Also, people are terrible enough at patching even with a single mainstream branch, making it worse doesn't strike me as a good idea.

[kat]

Well, it'll be done in the way that it's done, anyway.

No point in me getting out of my pram, really.

[Kindred]

Why hasn't it been fixed yet? Because we are not going to release 2.0.10 just to address a non critical typo that has no effect on the running of the forums.


This, along with several other things will be addressed when 2.0.10 is prepped..

And actually, the package manager won't work without a version.

[Arantor]

That last part is not strictly true, it will.

Basically, the order of operations is one of exclusivity, not inclusivity. If you specify an operation to be carried out without a version, it will be carried out in *all* cases. Even on inappropriate versions. This would let you install 2.0 mods on 1.1, or at least, this would let you have the option of installing 2.0 mods on 1.1 or vice versa.

In fact some old mods don't have version numbers because it never used to be mandatory.

That said, it's even more fragile doing it that way and I would never encourage it.

[Kindred]

what I meant was not mods in general -- but specifically patches -- and I didn't mean the package manager "action" but the "click here to upgrade to the new version"


basically... I meant something different from what I wrote (it was a tough day yesterday)

[Arantor]

Yeah, that one definitely does need that to work properly since the whole notion of 'just try and patch everything' as a cumulative patch isn't going to get you anywhere good.