My standard route has been to go to confluence, find the docs sections, then navigate through to the install docs for the version, e.g. sakai 10:
https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/x/iYGLBQ
Through one means or another I happened across the source route to this too, so starting here....
http://source.sakaiproject.org/release/
You get redirected to the latest stuff, and appended version numbers to that url gives you other docs, e.g. adding 2.8.2 or 10 to the end of the url
But the links to what I should download are quite often not there, at the time of writing the 10 tar ball and zip in the confluence links are dead and the source.sakaiproject links doesn't have the 10 docs yet (redirects to 2.9.3) presumably this is because v10 is not released yet....
So, I'd like to evaluate a new version of a sakai source install, what's the best way to do this? (considering the official documentation for install is still being formed)
Do I download the latest SVN, or the latest RC or the latest beta or??? How do I know what's best to test against without being "too" bleeding edge? Is there a recommended tar ball/zip link to test against? Is there a "latest good" SVN branch?
The latest code is always in the Sakai trunk (currently svn):
https://source.sakaiproject.org/svn/sakai/trunk/
That code may very well not be stable though as it is where things are being actively developed. If you are not actively developing then you should stick to the releases as indicated on the project website here:
http://sakaiproject.org/current-release
If you want to use something in between (say an upcoming release) then you can grab the most recent tag or maybe use a recent branch (both currently in svn, latest shown below at the time I write this):
https://source.sakaiproject.org/svn/sakai/branches/sakai-10.x/
https://source.sakaiproject.org/svn/sakai/tags/sakai-10-rc02/
The reality of the situation is that if you want to use something other than the release then you should really participate in the dev community for Sakai. Joining the mailing lists and the weekly calls will provide the information you are asking about and much more.
Related
As our RN application based on react-native#0.61.5, so we use expo#^0.37.0 to set up local development environment. But it seems that expo doesn't supply outdated docs, could only find recent version docs https://docs.expo.dev/versions/latest/.
Old docs often get lost, but thankfully there are a few ways of finding the old pages.
The first option is using the Wayback Machine from archive.org. The expo.dev site seems to go back to late 2020. A problem might be that some pages aren't crawled and might be missing.
And because it seems that their docs are open source with some commits going back three years. So you could in theory pull an old commit and build / run the docs locally.
You can use webarchive and old URL for documentation https://docs.expo.io.
In your case it is http://web.archive.org/web/20210305044934/https://docs.expo.io/versions/v37.0.0/ but not all pages are supported:
Use github online editor to check the outdate markdown docs is an optional solution.
Such as link: https://github.dev/expo/expo/blob/sdk-37/docs/pages/versions/unversioned/sdk/calendar.md#L1
Is there a best way to publish a previous major version of an npm package without adding a tag for it? Our current major version is 3.x (v3) so we npm publish that version to automatically give it the latest tag. When we publish updates to the 2.x version (v2) we have to give it a tag so that it doesn't automatically grab the latest tag from v3.
We could do something like previous, though the meaning of that is subjective. Really we don't need a tag for v2 at all. Semver works great if people want to install v2. Is there a better solution to not add unnecessary tags than publishing it with a tag and adding a postpublish script that deletes the tag? (That sounds ridiculous as I write it)
Looking at this comment from 2015, "Every publish must be associated with a dist-tag, by design." And I don't see a way to bypass the tag in the current code of libnpmpublish and npm, unfortunately.
Thus, I think you have the best options laid out already: publish under another tag, whether that tag is temporary or not.
However, if I could make a suggestion...
Instead of the subjective previous tag, you could consider publishing the previous versions under a tag called v2. This is a pattern that I've noticed the Angular team uses for LTS releases, for example:
While I think it's of minimal use to a consumer since they could just npm install #angular/core#11 instead of npm install #angular/core#v11-lts, nonetheless it might be a cleaner approach to publish.
I'm trying to upgrade a very old version of Aurelia CLI project v0.24.0 to the current version v1.2.3. I've tried to follow the steps from this link from the docs but when I try to run it I receive this error:
So my question is what is the best approach to upgrade it from such an old version to the newest one?
Just a screenshot of error is too little info to give proper advice on. And between the currently latest version of v1.2.3 and v0.24.0 (Jan, 2017) there's roughly 3 years. Fun part is, you'd be amazed at relatively how little Aurelia core itself has changed. Simply because a lot remained stable.
Most impactful changes will be in either:
aurelia_project folder, with the build and config routines
bundler config (system.js, webpack, requirejs - whichever you've used)
That being said, this does not necessarily mean that your dependencies have also remained stable in those past three years. Especially in Javascript world. To accommodate for this, I would suggest:
Create a blank, new project with the latest Aurelia CLI
Copy/paste over the /src folder from your old project to your new one
Take in consideration specifics, like package.json from your old project and migrate them by hand (reinstalling) in your new project
Again, try to keep your bundler similar and you will have relatively little changes. But if you choose you want to migrate from System.Js to Webpack, it'll be a bit more hassle. But arguably, rewarding in the end if your project needs to be kept alive for a longer while.
Considering the age of your old project, restarting with a clean setup and config is what I would consider to be "the best way" to retouch only the necessities.
Some time after the release of Elm19 I published a library, which I needed for an Elm18 code base: thought2/elm-wikimedia-commons.
This worked well, it's listed in the community driven Elm18 package database: https://dmy.github.io/elm-0.18-packages/, can be installed and all good. Except the fact that the documentation is not shown in the package details, but that I heard is a known bug there. (But still I think this is very bad)
But the main problem is now, how to migrate the library to Elm 19: The actual migration steps are done and live in the master branch of the repo: http://github.com/thought2/elm-wikimedia-commons
The Elm18 versions proceeded to 1.1.0 in the meanwhile and after the migration there had to be done an API change, so I'd assume the latest version to become 2.0.0. If I add this to elm.json, the command elm publish tells me that this would be the first version and I should change this. Which is not right.
After a bit of research, I found out that the package (among other 18 ones that have been published in the same time period) is not listed in this json: https://package.elm-lang.org/all-packages This should contain all packages regardless of versions.
Any ideas what to do? This is really blocking my development, as I'm stuck in both lands now: 18 and 19. Would appreciate a lot if someone has some hints or solutions for me!
You shouldn't need to mess with the version number specified in elm.json.
If you set it back to the version of the package that is already published and run elm bump the elm program will look at the changes you've made to the package's API and set the new version accordingly.
Looking at https://github.com/thought2/elm-wikimedia-commons it doesn't look like any of your upgrade changes were breaking changes to your package API so the version won't be a 2.x.x, it will be a 1.x.x.
You'll need to remove the 2.0.0 git tag as well and instead add a tag for the version that elm bump tells you that your package is.
Just getting ready to upgrade from 5.1 to 6.3. We have never performed an upgrade before.
About the upgrade path: When installing the updates, do I need to install the hotfixes, or just the major releases? (My gut says only major releases).
I found the documentation here:
http://www.sitefinity.com/documentation/documentationarticles/upgrading-you-sitefinity-5.1-project-to-the-latest-version
Is this documentation enough to make a smooth upgrade?
Yeah, just follow the documentation in the link you posted.
My process is to take full backups of the site files and database then perform the upgrade locally. Do the first step in the upgrade path then run through the site to test, back end and front end, then run the next step in the upgrade, and so on. I suppose if you want to be extra careful you could take additional backups between each upgrade step but that's probably overkill.
When making the web.config changes, there is an option to have Project Manager merge them for you but I end up just using Beyond Compare to compare the _EmptyProject folder in the extracted Project Manger files to my local files and do the web.config changes through a file compare. It cuts down on the differences in files from upgrade to upgrade and shows you whats been changed. The _EmptyProject folder is essentially the vanilla Sitefinty site files for that version.
Once the site is fully upgraded locally, I just publish the site in Visual Studio, copy the files over to the live site and overwrite the live database with a backup of my locally upgraded database.
Hope that helps.
I have upgraded Sitefinity 5.1 to 6.0, on a website which is in production (which included going through a couple of steps for the versions between).
I just followed the guidelines, and it went fine.
Now there are a couple of things you need to be aware of :
Source control
If your Sitefinity solution is on "Source Control", you should create a new duplicate of your solution, and disconnect this one(newly created) from "Source Control" before starting the upgrade. And of course you do the upgrade on the solution which is not in Source Control. Because you will probably have a lot of dll's to integrate, and if you have the project manager, your sitefinity project will run correctly, even though the new dll's aren't properly integrated in your solution and possibly "source control".
Unexpected behaviours of previously working elements
Secondly, I didn't test the frontend and backend during the different steps (Sitefinity versions within upgrade), but I tested everything once my solution had reached the last Sitefinity version. I thought I had checked everything, but it wasn't the case, and some of my custom Widgets didn't work properly on the latest version of Sitefinity. Next time I'll go more in detail on all custom parts, since from a working version of Sitefinity, you can end up with a newer version that breaks some behaviours. If you notice this, you might better wait a bit more for a fix, or the next release which might fix the problems.
Outside access to website during upgrade.
Furthermore, once you need to do the upgrade on the production database/website, the website shouldn't be accessed by people, since the upgrade of database might take some time.
Time needed for upgrading everything
One more thing I would like to add, it takes time to perform upgrade of several versions.
The first time I upgraded (I needed to go through 2 versions), and having to upgrade locally, to a development database, deploy the website on developement environment, then make it again on test. I took about 4 hours before everything was fully working. Make sure you have enough time, because it can be more tricky if you need to stop everything then come back to it.