Bug 983951 - 4.1. Step 3 should be similar as in RPM
Summary: 4.1. Step 3 should be similar as in RPM
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6
Classification: JBoss
Component: Documentation
Version: 6.1.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: GA
: EAP 6.2.0
Assignee: Lucas Costi
QA Contact: Russell Dickenson
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-07-12 11:24 UTC by Pavel Janousek
Modified: 2014-08-14 15:18 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Build: CSProcessor Builder Version 1.11 Build Name: 6895, Installation Guide-6.1-2 Build Date: 11-07-2013 14:10:24 Topic ID: 12710-458133 [Specified]
Last Closed: 2013-12-15 16:16:33 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Pavel Janousek 2013-07-12 11:24:28 UTC
Title: Upgrade the JBoss EAP 6 ZIP Installation

Describe the issue:
Step 3 for ZIP upgrade should be consistent between ZIP and RPM upgrade way. We should not allow our customers to blindly copy their old instance (possible very old - contains e.g. EAP-6.0.0) configuration to new location and replace cfg. files like standalone.xml etc.

Suggestions for improvement:
For our safety, there should be some like this sentence:
Manually merge your changes from previous installation over the new installation directories.

The step 4 contains similar useful (safer) way how to solve the upgrade.

Comment 4 Lucas Costi 2013-10-23 00:44:14 UTC
I have altered step 3 to be similar to step 4, with a warning about copying configuration files from previous versions.

Change made to topic 12710 (rev. 548437)

The change will be reflected in the next document build, and the status will be changed to ON_QA when it is ready for review.

Comment 6 Petr Kremensky 2013-10-24 16:25:26 UTC
Verified (during EAP 6.2.0 testing cycle).

Comment 8 Russell Dickenson 2013-12-05 23:43:36 UTC
Attention: Brian

I appreciate that in this instance we (Docs) provided instructions which were inaccurate. As to discussing such changes with Engineering, which types of changes would you prefer be discussed in advance? I'm happy to have Docs team members refer such changes to an SME as required, as long as we know just which changes ought to be referred.

Comment 10 Russell Dickenson 2013-12-06 03:38:55 UTC
Brian,

Thanks. All three criteria are very useful.

As for devel_ack, ideally we don't make documentation changes unless devel_ack is provided. As to whom should provide that ACK, well, that's a good point. I hope this could be raised in an EAP PM meeting.


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