1.3.x vs 1.5.x database changes

Hi are there any database changes between 1.3 and 1.5?

could i just replace the old files with the new ones?

thanks

Yes, there are some vital database changes between these versions. This is one for which you should follow the full upgrade process described in the FAQ.

I'm really sorry for asking this question but i have read the faq about 10 times and i'm not sure i understand.

-- i currently have my cart installed (1.3.9) in the root dir "/"

-- from what i understand i need to upload all the files in the 1.5 zip into a new folder "/new"

-- then i install that version.

-- but do i point it to my current database? or to a new one?

-- then i copy the files in "/new" into "/"

right?

thanks and sorry for the stupid question.:wacko:

The upgrade documentation is coaching you in the process of installing a TEMPORARY COPY of your site for UPGRADE STAGING/TESTING purposes. So, you will use a COPY of your live database, imported into a NEW TESTING-ONLY database.

Then once you've done all your testing and determined all the steps to follow for reliably upgrading the live site, you'll be able to quickly do the upgrade to your live store's database with just a few minutes' downtime.

There are many other more complicated ways to do an upgrade, but the one documented is the one I use all the time myself and find it to be very effective. I never lose any data that way because my live store always continues using the live data. And having it down for only a few minutes to do the actual final real upgrade on the live store is, well, delightful.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it would be better to simply redirect the live site to the testing area once you have the bugs worked out, no? Obviously you'd have to apply a redirect so you don't loose face with regards to SEO and probably do a few other minor adjustment s I'm not thinking of at the moment...

To me the sentence "...you'll be able to quickly do the upgrade to your live store's database with just a few minutes' downtime" doesn't ring true. I've got so many mods in the db and the php/js files at this point that redoing this in a "live" fashion while my site is in maintenance mod isn't logical. I'd be down for way more than "a few minutes".

Or am I misunderstanding that one is suppose to grap the newly customized/updated/bug fixed db and files from the temporary area and upload that against the live site while in maintenance mode? That's the only way I could see it being a process that would take few minutes. Albeit, the later would leave you with potentially obsolete files in your structure unless you use a sync client that can --delete what's not in the source.

I don't mean to put anyone on the defensive by raising this, but there must be something I'm not grasping about the chosen method.

On a side note, I'd be curious to know what the actual urgency is to upgrading to 1.5 from 1.3.9h? What is the rated level of importance? ie critical, important, recommended or optional? Or did I miss that too and it's stated somewhere?

Thanks,
Phil

familynow:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it would be better to simply redirect the live site to the testing area once you have the bugs worked out, no?

Bear in mind that your "upgrade texting site" is a "snapshot" of the live site at the very point at which it was created. This "snapshot" is both the FILES and the DATABASE.

Your LIVE site will continue to trade, capturing and manipulating data everytime someone visits, or everytime someone regisers, logs in or buys something.

If you make your test area the live site after the upgrade, you are in effect "awakening" that snapshot, so any data captured on the original live site from the point at which the snapshot was taken, will not be in the database of the testing site.

familynow:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it would be better to simply redirect the live site to the testing area once you have the bugs worked out, no? Obviously you'd have to apply a redirect so you don't loose face with regards to SEO and probably do a few other minor adjustment s I'm not thinking of at the moment...

And indeed it;s what some of us pros do, i.e. put the old site into maintenance to prevent new data being added to the database. Copy the database and re-upgrade it. Then redirect the URL to the new location, where it finds up-to-date data and a site not in maintenance.

So why isn't this the recommended approach? Well, it requires some knowledge of redirection and the options available depend on the server OS, the hosting account control panel and how the site was set up originally. So it's more complicated to explain and easier to get into mess doing.

However, we'd never use this approach in circumstances that actually change how the URL looks in the browser, so there's no SEO implications, and the recommended approach does work fine.

familynow:

On a side note, I'd be curious to know what the actual urgency is to upgrading to 1.5 from 1.3.9h? What is the rated level of importance? ie critical, important, recommended or optional? Or did I miss that too and it's stated somewhere?

Not critical, but certainly recommended. 1.3.9h can be considered safe, but 1.5 is safer. That's to say I'm not aware of any actual security exploits for 1.3.9, but 1.5 shuts the door to several hypothetical ones. There's also a smattering of bug fixes.