[4.0] Log the event on actionlogs when Joomla update

[sozzled]

Describe the solution you'd like

See #30157 and #30714

Additional context

This feature is now part of J! 3.9 (from J! 3.9.21 and J! 3.9.22) but appears to have dropped off the todo list for J! 4.

[zero-24]

Well all things we do in 3.x get merged up from time to time to 3.10-dev and 4.0-dev. So it might just had not happen in the mean time. I can take a look into a up merge in the next days.

[zero-24]

I just did the staging -> 3.10 update. Seems that 3.10 to 4.x thing is much bigger and requires more time than i have now. But please be assured that once that happend this feature is also there in 4.x

[Quy]

#31300

[sozzled]

I don't understand why this issue is closed. I am beta testing J! 4; I'm not testing J! 3.10 alpha. I'm asking that this matter be allowed to remain an open issue for J! 4, please, regardless of whether any J! 3.x enhancements may possibly be later merged into J! 4. If it's not possible to implement this feature in J! 4 then we can leave it but, until then I think this issue should remain open as a reminder of something that should be put into J! 4.

[brianteeman]

There is no need to keep it open as a reminder. The reminder is already present in #31300 placed there by @Quy

[sozzled]

Thanks, Brian. Basically you're saying that my feedback from beta testing was noted (which is good) and has been added to something that looks quite unrelated (which is puzzling to me) and that these two issues will be looked at in the future (possibly) but you'd rather that we don't keep my feedback on the notice paper and it may be a waste of beta tester's time to provide our feedback from our testing of J! 4.

I understand from @Quy that you'd rather have one GitHub issue to address all of these J! 4 matters than have individual "issues" for each, as we discover them.

I understand that now. Roger, wilco, over and out.

[brianteeman]

no thats not what was said

[sozzled]

No? I'm sorry, I don't understand.

I thought @Quy wanted a GitHub issue item that basically says "All J! 3.x issues, not yet addressed in J! 4, that will be looked into as we go ahead in J! 4" (see #31298)

Not eventually but definitely this is true for all bugs fixed in the 3.x series. I would propose to have one ticket thats than marked as release block and not have one per bug fixdd in 3.x

So, would you kindly explain the reason for closing individual issues as we discover them? It seems counter-intuitive to me that we close individual issues (by tacking them on to some broader milestone "issue"). I'm simply asking what is the best way for beta testers to post their feedback into GitHub.

[zero-24]

So, would you kindly explain the reason for closing individual issues as we discover them? It seems counter-intuitive to me that we close individual issues (by tacking them on to some broader milestone "issue").

Yes. The reason it is a one time task to apply all changes made from 3.x to 4.x else we would have to open for every PR merged into 3.x also an issue for 4.x. I'm not sure whether that is something that would help.

I'm simply asking what is the best way for beta testers to post their feedback into GitHub.

I would say exactly like you did here. And than we can take a look into them and fix them.

[sozzled]

Thanks, @zero24. It still puzzles me that we should have one "issue" (#31300 addressing several unrelated matters) as a milestone/cognate matter simply because it may be convenient and save the trouble in revisiting each of those unrelated matters down the track. Further, having one cognate matter (wherein individual items may or may not be addressed, or not necessarily addressed at the same time) kind of defeats the purpose of having an issue tracker—that allows individual tracking on the progress of each of those items.

However, if the purpose of GitHub has changed, so that we're simply trying to reduce the number of open issues by collecting those issues into one place, then I have to say that I disagree with this approach. Is that the real purpose: to just reduce the number? In any case, it's not a matter of what I believe; it's not my GitHub and you can manage it how you see fit.