That was I was getting at in my original email too. Thanks for
clarifying.
On May 18, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Andrew Berry <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 18-May-09, at 5:06 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
Quoting Andrew Berry <[email protected]>:
On 18-May-09, at 8:37 AM, Mark Shropshire wrote:
Thanks for the instructions on this. You included the step of
going to 5.0 first, then the latest 5.x. I always wondered if
this was necessary.
AFAIK it shouldn't be; Earnie, can you explain why you did it that
way?
Because it ensures that all updates marked for 5.x are made since
those updates are not carried to 6.x.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I was curious as to why you did the
extra step of 5.0 to 5.x. Are updates being removed within the 5.x
releases? If you had a 4.7.x site, wouldn't you want to go from
4.7.11 directly to 5.18?
--Andrew
