Backport or not ?

[John Ralls]

On Jun 21, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:

> I have just pushed a fix for bug 67132 [1] where not all parameters of recurrences were saved to sql.
> 
> This fix would probably be very easy to backport to 2.4.x.
> 
> However, the patch involves updating the table definition for the recurrence table (a column is added for the parameter that wasn't saved). The table format as it is in 2.4.10 is incomplete so it causes data loss. Fixing it in 2.4.11 would mean that once a datafile is opened with 2.4.11, it can't be opened with 2.4.10 anymore (due to the increment in recurrence table version).
> 
> Yet the bug was reported against 2.4.10.
> 
> So I'm not sure about the proper decision here: backport or not ?
> 

I think the rule is that 2.4.11 should be able to read the new format, but shouldn't write it, but that seems a bit stupid because it doesn't fix the bug. I suppose we could do something with KVP where 2.4.11 writes (and reads) the weekend_adjust value to KVP and trunk knows to look there, but it would be an ugly, complex hack.

Regards,
John Ralls


Regards,
John Ralls