Last modified: 2014-09-23 23:16:11 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T30824, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 28824 - updatelog table not populated on install
updatelog table not populated on install
Status: NEW
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Installer (Other open bugs)
1.17.x
All All
: Normal normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-05-05 07:38 UTC by Tim Starling
Modified: 2014-09-23 23:16 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Tim Starling 2011-05-05 07:38:39 UTC
The updatelog table is empty after a fresh install, so a subsequent upgrade will perform unnecessary and potentially dangerous upgrade operations.
Comment 1 Chad H. 2011-05-05 19:43:01 UTC
In my original design of expanding the updatelog table, I was planning to track version numbers installed (as well as breaking up getCoreUpdateList() by version numbers). Thus the updater could at least skip updates we know we have. 

Aryeh didn't like that idea, so I reverted it (can't seem to find where, at the moment)
Comment 2 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2011-05-05 22:44:46 UTC
Specifically, for most updates we don't need to log anything in updatelog -- we can directly check whether the update is present.  This is simpler and more failsafe, so I don't like the idea of using updatelog for those updates unless there's some good specific reason (speed?).

However, for updates where we can't tell whether it's been run without an updatelog row, obviously we've got to add that on fresh installs, yeah.  At best it would be a waste of time to run those updates unnecessarily, and at worst perhaps dangerous.  (Although I'm not sure what kind of updates would be harmful to run twice, that wouldn't also cause problems if they were aborted midway through and had to be resumed.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links