Re: [Jabref-users] pdf/url links

[Harry S. <tra...@gm...>]

2007/9/15, Morten Omholt Alver <mor...@gm...>:
>
> On 15/09/2007, Harry Sack <tra...@gm...> wrote:
> > hi
> >
> > I'm using a bib file saved with jabref 2.2 and i want to migrate to 2.3.
> > Will i lose all pdf and url links in that bib file when i open it in
> > v2.3 or will jabref automatically convert the pdf and url links to the
> > new 'file' link and also saves them this way in the bib file?
>
> Hi,
>
> this is an important question.
>
> You should not lose anything when upgrading to 2.3. When opening files
> written by older versions, you will get a question about whether you
> want to upgrade old-style file links.



When I open my old bib file (written with version 2.2) I don't get  any
dialogbox asking me to convert the pdf and ps links.
Is this a bug? I'm running latest beta on Windows XP SP2 with latest java
version.
Hower using the options in Tools -> Scan database -> Upgrade external links
works correctly.
Is it already safe the use the new 'file' feature in the beta2 or is it
recommended to wait till the final 2.3 version?



If you agree, all pdf and ps
> links will be moved to the new "file" field, and the "pdf" and "ps"
> fields will be cleared. You don't lose any of the links, but if you
> return to JabRef 2.2 they will appear hidden, since the "file" field
> is not supported. There is also a menu choice for doing this upgrade,
> found under Tools -> Scan database -> Upgrade external links.


So if I understand it well: if you do the upgrade and you later want to go
back to version 2.2 you will have to manually add the links to the pdf and
ps fields again in the older version of jabref?



The URL links could be added to the "file" field, but currently the
> new version doesn't automatically upgrade those. This is because some
> BibTeX styles support the "url" field, so in some cases it may perhaps
> be interesting to keep those as they are.



IMHO it's best, I think, to let the URL field stay there like it was in
older versions and not to add it to the file field.

We want the transition to 2.3 to be as smooth as possible, so we wil
> of course listen to suggestions about this!
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Morten Alver
>