--- In informaticadevelopment%40yahoogroups.com">informaticadevelopment
yahoogroups.com, amit amit
<amit_gct
...> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Just an additional update on versioning....In PC 7.x there
> was a bug reported where multiple folders used to get
> created during upgradation. This bug has been fixed in 8.1.
> There is no issue of folder replication now.
>
> Regards,
> Amit
>
> --- On Thu, 7/10/08, Nico Heinze <grollnar
...> wrote:
>
> From: Nico Heinze <grollnar
...>
> Subject: [INFORMATICA Development] Re: Versioning of folders
> in PC8.1
> To: informaticadevelopment%40yahoogroups.com">informaticadevelopment
yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 10:21 AM
>
> --- In informaticadevelopm ent
yahoogroups. com, amit amit
> <amit_gct
.> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nico,
> >
> > Thanks!!
> > Anyways i found the reason for replication of folders.
> > We upgraded rep from PC 5.1 to 8.1 two yrs back and then
> > installed the SP on this to have PC8.1.1.
> > These folders were created during that time.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Amit
> <snip>
>
> My bad. I should have asked whether you recently upgraded the
> repository.
> [Just a short tech info for those interested in this matter:
> The versioning scheme in earlier versions of PowerCenter
> utilised several versions of folders to keep a history of
> objects; these folders had additional numbers in their names,
> e.g. Testfolder_0_ 0_0, Testfolder_0_ 0_1, and so on.
> The scheme introduced in PowerCenter 7 has been rewritten
> from scratch, so these schemes of versioning cannot be
> compared.]
<snip>
I suggest you be a bit more careful about your wording; what you
describe is strictly speaking NO bug:
If you as an upgrade process have let's say five versions of the same
folder, how would YOU do the upgrade? Of course from a technical point
of view it makes sense to keep these five folders alive in the
upgraded repository.
That this behaviour rarely makes much sense for a human is a
completely different story.
So in my opinion you should not name this behaviour a bug; from the
technical point of view this behaviour was correct.
Regards,
Nico
.