| Anonymous | Login | 06-19-2013 07:24 AM | ![]() |
| My View | View Issues |
| View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Print ] | ||||||||||
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update | ||||||
| 0004113 | SMF 2.1 | [SMF 3.0 "Saguaro"] | public | 2009-12-22 10:26 | 2012-06-14 06:07 | ||||||
| Reporter | huw | ||||||||||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always | ||||||
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||||||||
| Platform | OS | OS Version | |||||||||
| Summary | 0004113: Redundant files | ||||||||||
| Description | When upgrading between major versions some Source and Template files have been renamed or are no longer present. Currently the upgrader doesn't identify and delete these files. I think it would be good practice to do this. Additionally the file versions area (Support and Credits > More Detailed) shows these files with latest version marked "??". It'd be nice to display a message instead informing the user that this file is no longer used and so can be deleted. | ||||||||||
| Tags | 2.1 | ||||||||||
| Attached Files | |||||||||||
Notes |
|
|
(0011133) Arantor (Viewer) 2009-12-22 10:30 |
For example, 1.1's ModSettings.php is replaced by 2.0's ManageSettings.php I agree this would be nice; I personally think this should even be done prior to 2.0 final because it's a 2.0 feature essentially not working in line with user expectations. However I have no objections to deferring to 2.1. |
|
(0013058) Norv (Developer) 2010-09-26 11:07 |
Might be worth looking into, for 2.0 final. IMHO it looks a bit unprofessional, this way. |
|
(0013437) groundup (Team Member) 2010-11-23 21:31 |
This is in 2.1, should it not be in 2.0? |




