From: Jonny B. <jo...@ti...> - 2010-05-31 11:04:42
|
Hi all As no one else (possibly more qualified than me) has stepped in, and i agree we need to get 5.0 out quicky-quick, i have committed a small fix (r27396) which i believe does the job. Not quite the "one hour fix" Marc was requesting, but certainly not more than three! :) It uses UTF-8 for PDO on new installs, and updates from anything other than 4.0 (really 4.x). I have tested it on several databases, mainly 3.x ones, but it seems a lot of my data (especially from 1.x days) is already "wrong" so it's a bit hard to tell. It doesn't seem to make it worse in the browser (which was always ok anyway). Please test as much as you can, especially those whose alphabets aren't entirely 7-bit like mine ;) I will roll back if it makes anything worse, of course, or if anyone else can commit a better way of doing it. jb On 29 May 2010, at 15:07, Marc Laporte wrote: > Hi! > > Here are my views on this issue. > > > 1- We committed to scheduled releases > ---------------------------------------------------------- > We are already quite late (we should be at 5.1 by now). 5.x fixes > several issues of 4.x In many cases, we have only fixed things on 5.x > and told people that 4.x is "closed", they will just need to upgrade > to 5.x (we told them: "it's coming very soon"). We have tons of users > in Tiki 4 and it's not cool for these people to make them wait this > long. > > This is timeline: > 2010-03-09 branches/5.x was created > 2010-04-07 Beta1 > 2010-04-23 Beta2 > 2010-05-13 RC1 > > > 2- This issue has been known for a long time. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > tiki-db-pdo.php has been reverted several times 9 months ago: > http://tikiwiki.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/tikiwiki/trunk/db/tiki-db-pdo.php?view=log&pathrev=20549 > > Three different devs where involved and it was causing visible > breakage on existing sites. Then, no one worked on it for 8+ months > and it was brought back to the surface on May 20th on tiki-devel (May > 14th in another email), thus after RC1 > > > 3- It's not a regression from Tiki 4. > ------------------------------------------------ > It's perhaps not a good situation, but Tiki5 is no worse than Tiki4. > In an ideal world, it would have been addressed before 4.x, but nobody > did it. There are many amazing great things in our community, but this > one fell between the cracks. > > > 4- It's late and risky for Tiki 5.0 > -------------------------------------------- > If it was easy, it would already have been resolved. Playing with > encoding, migrating/converting the data seems very risky at this stage > (RC1). It involves various scenarios. upgrades vs new installs, and > uncertainties about various servers (Does MySQL on Linux work the same > than on Windows?), and also that some people have dedicated servers > with full control (and can set mySQL as they please), while others > just get whatever the hosting company offers. For people using > installers such as Fantastico, we can't afford to have the upgrade go > wrong. > > Normally, to help us detect and fix problems, we use our dev community > and *.tikiwiki.org sites as Dogfood during the alpha and beta stages. > This permits to shake out a lot of bugs. If this issue had been been > put to the surface towards the beginning of the branch, we could have > had ample testing. At this point, I don't see how we can do a real > testing/dogfood without delaying for several more weeks. > > Some of us have been investing a lot of time since the branching over > two months ago. It has to come to an end. The popcorn is burning. And > once 5.0 is out, we still have a lot to do for marketing, etc. > > > 5- Tiki 5.x is not an LTS. > ----------------------------------- > We should decide which one will become the next LTS (6, 7, 8) and make > sure this issue is resolved in time. Thus people moving from LTS to > LTS are OK. > > > So, my position is: > > If there is a one-hour risk free fix (presumably an option, with > default value being with no change), let's have it now (or make it > easy for people to remain with ADOdb), and release. If we don't have > it, let's just release 5.0 now (we are already late and in RC mode, > too late to make major changes) and to have a real, long term fix in > trunk. Then, we can have more people test it and then, we can put in > 5.1 (and if we can't, then, it'll be very early for Tiki6) > > > Best regards, > > M ;-) > > > > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Marc Laporte <ma...@ma...> wrote: >>> Finding a simple fix (with a value stored in preference) for new >>> installs and not for upgrades should be trivial and is the minimum to >>> do. If we can find a way to also handle the difference between 3.x and >>> 4.x upgrades it would be better ( I'll try to have a look at this this >>> week-end if nobody has found something before ). >>> >> >> >> Thank you Nyloth! >> >> If you want, I have a lot of data from 1.9.x, 2.x, 3.x as well. >> >> This could be useful to test migrations. >> >> Best regards, >> >> M ;-) >> > > > > -- > Marc Laporte > > http://MarcLaporte.com > http://TikiWiki.org/MarcLaporte > http://AvanTech.net > http://OurWiki.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Tikiwiki-devel mailing list > Tik...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel |