On May 18, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Andrew Berry wrote:
> On 18-May-09, at 8:37 AM, Mark Shropshire wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the instructions on this. You included the step of going
>> to 5.0 first, then the latest 5.x. I always wondered if this was
>> necessary.
>
> AFAIK it shouldn't be; Earnie, can you explain why you did it that
> way?
The update system as it is designed is technically capable of this,
but managing updates for one release to the next (i.e. 5 to 6) is hard
enough on core developers, and there is no testing done on major
version skip-updates (i.e. 4.7-6) and consequently no support for that.
-Mike
__________________
Michael Prasuhn
mike@...
http://mikeyp.net
