Opened 11 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#35066 closed defect (bug) (wontfix)
Rename `.maintenance` for compatibility
| Reported by: | dd32 | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Upgrade/Install | Version: | |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | 2nd-opinion close needs-patch |
| Cc: | Focuses: |
Description
FTP Servers really don't like hidden files, often due to the server being configured to hide them. This has caused compatibility issues such as #28013 & #34976
We should consider changing it to a non-hidden file, initial suggestion would be something such as wordpress.maintenance or wp.maintenance.
This would benefit us in that we'd no longer be creating/altering hidden files which are often treated as special by the system, which would make our upgrades more reliable.
Attachments (3)
Change History (12)
#2
@
11 years ago
Keeping backwards compat here is kind of annoying honestly, but would have to be done for a short period at least. I'd probably recommend supporting both at first and removing it in x.y+2
#3
@
11 years ago
Because of how often the check is ran, and because the file system doesn't cache false responses to file_exists, I definitely agree we should move to get rid of the backwards compatibility as soon as possible. Fortunately, for the majority of requests I only had to add one file_exists check.
I played around with a structure to store which of the file_exists checks came out true so that including the file didn't require an additional (albeit duplicate) check, but I felt that would ad to much overhead to the first set of checks that are much more commonly ran.
#5
@
10 years ago
For my own reference: https://github.com/bluehost/wp-tools/issues/6
![(please configure the [header_logo] section in trac.ini)](/chrome/site/your_project_logo.png)
Note that we'll probably need to maintain back-compat for plugins that use the
.maintenancefile to send WordPress into maintenance mode. So we could add recognition of the new file and start using it for core's upgrade routines, but we'll probably want to keep the check for the old maintenance file as well.