Upgrade Storagere: 2.0rc2 upgrade caused unwanted linking of artifacts
Sean,
re the thread of mine you closed without waiting to find out what happened when I tried to reproduce the issue. I didn't report back earlier as I wasn't online for a couple of days.
As it happens I couldn't reproduce the issue, so I have no idea what might have happened but... I won't be an early adopter of 2.0. (this also has to do with issues with FF3.6)
As for the hundreds of thousands of users. You might wish to narrow that number by two factors:
1. the number who have installed and worked with the 2.0 beta
2. the number of those who have been actively using 2.0 so as to encounter any issues with the correctness of the data after the upgrade.
You can of course do whatever you wish as far as closing discussions. As you will note, I can simply open a new one, so, it might be best to allow a thread to take its course.
re the thread of mine you closed without waiting to find out what happened when I tried to reproduce the issue. I didn't report back earlier as I wasn't online for a couple of days.
As it happens I couldn't reproduce the issue, so I have no idea what might have happened but... I won't be an early adopter of 2.0. (this also has to do with issues with FF3.6)
As for the hundreds of thousands of users. You might wish to narrow that number by two factors:
1. the number who have installed and worked with the 2.0 beta
2. the number of those who have been actively using 2.0 so as to encounter any issues with the correctness of the data after the upgrade.
You can of course do whatever you wish as far as closing discussions. As you will note, I can simply open a new one, so, it might be best to allow a thread to take its course.
A bug that's encountered by one single user, is not reproducible, and is by its nature impossible to be caused by the software in question is - for developing purposes - not a bug. Closing threads that are no longer useful is not intended as a diss against the person who opened it, but is vital to keep the forum somewhat manageable.
You are obviously not an early adopter of 2.0, as thousands (and probably hundred of thousands) of users have been using 2.0b for a long time. And it's OK that you're not, it's not like anyone is forcing you to do something you don't want. As a note, though, FF 3.6 is no requirement for Zotero 2.0 - I'm running it comfortably on FF 3.57.
Finally, remember that if you will actually ever need Zotero technical support, you will have to rely on the people that you're now - at least judging by the tone of your post - trying to pick a fight with. While that's absolutely your right, it might still not be the best idea.
0. In the spirit of gratitude, let me first express gratitude to having access to this tool at no charge. So thanks to those who created it and those who pay the bills as a service to the common good.
1. "it wasn't going anywhere useful". Useful for whom? When I left it I was going to attempt to reproduce the error and report back.
2. When the thread was closed your staff didn't have any idea if it was reproducible or not as I had yet to let you know which I stated I would.
3. I grant you I don't have the smoothest style but if I don't receive decent service (I'm not a regular poster) under one name, it is easy enough to create a bimbo alternate userid. I wasn't trying to pick a fight; I could as easily intone that some Z staff have thin skins and take offense at any suggestion that their creation is less than bullet-proof such as the audit s/w suggestion. Maybe there _is_ a double check during the upgrade of each record following transfer to the new structure; I don't know.
4. Look, I know that Z doesn't convert image files (obviously the humour was missed) but the link which appeared after the upgrade came from somewhere, and that is entirely plausible as a bug.
Feel free to close the thread with or without reply.