Replies: 6 comments
-
@evsh, do you want to support bidirectional migrations? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Apparently, the currently used config location is correct. As I said in another issue:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
No, I don't. Does anybody want to write twice more migrating functions?
OK, I missed that somehow. Then only one possible migration is under consideration. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
+1
+1 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This is the first time I saw this. If the 2nd part why is it needed to do that? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We were discussing config migration from version to version and that migration functions are scattered all across the program, and that migration should be somehow controlled by |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
With profiles and portable mode in place, settings and files migrations have to be performed per-profile. We have two migration suggestions already: migrate settings files into configs location (Windows) and migrate data to
~/.local/share
(UNIX). And this would be better to decide before 3.4.0 release, when profiles go into wild life.My suggestion (looked up in Kile (KDE LaTeX editor) is: let's always write qBt version into the config file and then use this version as an indicator which uprgrate/migration steps are needed. In the app we can collect a dictionary of version->upgradeFunction opbjects. then comparing version from the settings file to the versions in this dictionary, we select required steps, sort them by version and run.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions