Section 3.10: Upgrading - outdated examples

RESOLVED FIXED in Bugzilla 2.16

Status

()

Bugzilla
Documentation
RESOLVED FIXED
14 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: justdave, Assigned: Niels Reedijk)

Tracking

2.17.7
Bugzilla 2.16
Bug Flags:
approval +
approval2.18 +
blocking2.18 +
approval2.16 +
blocking2.16.7 +

Details

Attachments

(2 attachments)

Example 3.1 and 3.2 both have the old FTP urls prior to the move out of AOL's
servers.

Also, this probably should (maybe?) be updated to use 2.18 as examples instead
of 2.16.
the ftp urls portion at least will apply to both branches.  We could use 2.16.6
instead of 2.16.2 as an example in the 2.16 branch probably.
Flags: blocking2.18+
Flags: blocking2.16.6+
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.16
(Assignee)

Comment 2

14 years ago
Created attachment 147867 [details] [diff] [review]
Update for the 2.16 branch

This is the update to the 2.16 branch. It changes the release to 2.16.6 and has
the proper ftp URLs.
(Assignee)

Comment 3

14 years ago
Created attachment 147868 [details] [diff] [review]
Update for the 2.18 branch

Updates the release to 2.18.1. I wasn't entirely sure if this was the best
option, however, as there won't be an example with patches when 2.18.0 is out,
it would seem best to use this revision as an example.
Comment on attachment 147868 [details] [diff] [review]
Update for the 2.18 branch

r=gerv; this seems fine.

Gerv
Attachment #147868 - Flags: review+
Comment on attachment 147867 [details] [diff] [review]
Update for the 2.16 branch

r=gerv; this one too.

Gerv
Attachment #147867 - Flags: review?(gerv)

Updated

13 years ago
Attachment #147867 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review+

Updated

13 years ago
Flags: approval2.18?
Flags: approval2.16?
the 2.18 patch applies cleanly on the trunk, it should go there, too.
Flags: blocking2.16.7+
Flags: blocking2.16.6+
Flags: approval2.18?
Flags: approval2.18+
Flags: approval2.16?
Flags: approval2.16+
Flags: approval+
Whiteboard: patch awaiting checkin
reassigning to patch author

I'm assuming you don't have cvs write access and probably need someone to check
this in for you?
Assignee: documentation → n.reedijk
(Assignee)

Comment 8

13 years ago
Yes, please check it in for me.
Checked into trunk, 2.18 branch, and 2.16 branch.  Thanks Niels!

Checking in docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v  <-- 
administration.xml
new revision: 1.34.2.1; previous revision: 1.34
done
Checking in ../bztip/docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v  <-- 
administration.xml
new revision: 1.37; previous revision: 1.36
done
Checking in ../bz216/docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v  <-- 
administration.xml
new revision: 1.13.2.14; previous revision: 1.13.2.13
done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: patch awaiting checkin

Comment 10

13 years ago
Myk: you need to include in the CVS log the name and the email of the person
that wrote the patch if you're not commiting your own code (per the CVS
contributor fax text, section 4a -
http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/CVS-Contributor-Form.pdf :) ).
> Myk: you need to include in the CVS log the name and the email of the person
> that wrote the patch if you're not commiting your own code

Quite right.  I usually do but slipped up here.  Sorry about the omission.
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.