All, I am about to broadcast again clear communication (reminder) about the issue.
I've talked to Rok (first one raising the issue) and to Jon Alegria (in charge of support) and both agree that just reading our communication solves the problem. I will stress that in order to safely update to MP9 you should do scan for updates and then 'Apply all' updates available. For custom modules not published in our CR you should take care of fixing it, and there is nothing we can do more than communication. Josep, the solution you propose would solve the issue and would create a MUCH BIGGER ONE: it would be needed all current modules to be published again extending dependency to next major version of core (2.51), and this is something that definitely we don't want to do. Please, avoid proposing additional solutions if you are not 100% sure it will work, false hints are much more painful than helpful. Let me stress the message we sent in our previous communication: we are doing the best we can do since 1) we must solve the original issue the sooner the better 2) there is no point in keeping stable something if it is wrong 3) there is no smoother path than the one we are following (we discussed it publically during several weeks and we got an unanimous agreement on the way we are doing Thanks, Ismael -----Mensaje original----- De: Josep Mitja [mailto:[email protected]] Enviado el: miercoles, 09 de diciembre de 2009 10:47 Para: Stefan Huehner CC: openbravo-development Asunto: Re: [Openbravo-development] mp7 to mp9 core update > You need to update core and the affected modules together in one > batch, > as the following two combinations of: > > a.) old core - new module > b.) new core - old module > > will fail to compile. > The combination a.) has been excluded by specifying proper > dependencies > but for b.) nothing can be done via dependencies so it will fail if > someone only updates core and not the modules. Is it true that nothing can be done about b)? Maybe, if we had renamed the core 2.51 with that update, the effect could have been prevented. Can you confirm my hypothesis? In any case, I am sure there are ways to solve this problem. Let's see if we can find one that we can easily implement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Openbravo-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbravo-development ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Openbravo-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbravo-development
