[request-tracker-maintainers] Bug#748737: Bug#748737: Bug#748737: Bug#748737: rt4-extension-assettracker: fails to upgrade from wheezy

[Dominic Hargreaves]

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 05:09:35PM -0400, Jerome Charaoui wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 07:27:05AM +0000, Chris Caldwell wrote:
> > > Looks like the upstream's an orphaned project (no commits for 6 months) and won't be updated for RT 4.2.
> 
> Although it's true that upstream seems to have abandoned the project,
> work had already begun to update the plugin to 4.2, see branch
> 3.2/support-4.2 [1]
> 
> 
> > > Is this a good place to suggest Best Practical's own RT::Extension::Assets (http://bestpractical.com/assets) as a candidate for packaging?
> 
> The recommended pratice is to submit an RFP [2].

That's #783213. The basic packaging is done[1], but I haven't managed to
get the database schema manipulation during installs done for a long
time now. I plan to use the Assets extension at some point soon though,
so will try and get it done.
 
> > It's as good as any. Unfortunately I think it is now too late to get
> > a new package into jessie. One interesting question is if there is
> > any sane data migration strategy between the two: that might affect
> > the immediate value of packaging RT::Extension::Assets.
> 
> To my knowledge there is no migration path between the two. I think
> Debian users of this extension would be best served at this time by
> packaging the 4.2 branch and publishing it in the experimental archive.
> I've been using it for a bit and although there are a couple of bugs, it
> works well enough that the data is still useable, which IMHO is an
> acceptable temporary option before BestPractical or someone else decides
> to write code to migrate data between the two extensions.

This sounds like a reasonable idea, although we would definitely want
to flag that it's not recommended for new installs.

[1] <http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-request-tracker/rt-extension-assets.git>

Dominic.