The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20201128145846/https://github.com/versionpress/versionpress/pull/1354
Skip to content

/ versionpress

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Ignore user_meta community-events-location #1354

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from
Open

Ignore user_meta community-events-location #1354

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@candrews
Copy link
Contributor

@candrews candrews commented Sep 19, 2018 •
edited by borekb

community-events-location records the user's IP upon login; that's not useful information to store in version control.
@candrews
Ignore user_meta community-events-location
Verified
This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with a verified signature using GitHub’s key.
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23 Learn about signing commits
Loading status checks…
284f501 
community-events-location records the user's IP upon login; that's not useful information to store in version control.
@borekb borekb requested a review from pavelevap Sep 24, 2018
@borekb
Copy link
Member

@borekb borekb commented Sep 24, 2018

Hi @candrews, thanks for the PR. It looks good to me, I've asked @pavelevap for one final confirmation and then we can merge this. Thanks!
@pavelevap
Copy link
Collaborator

@pavelevap pavelevap commented Sep 24, 2018 •
edited

Hi @candrews,

I checked community-events-location usermeta, but it is not used only for IP address.
Users can also manually select their own city and ignore IP address, please see screenshot. In this case we should preserve this information, I guess.

image

I agree that we can ignore IP address, but it depends on another related issue: #1350 (ignoring only part of serialized entity).
@borekb
Copy link
Member

@borekb borekb commented Sep 24, 2018

Nice find. So I guess it would be best to wait for #1350 to be implemented and then re-do the schema change using the update API / syntax in a fresh PR. The caveat here is that #1350 is not easy to implement, unfortunately, so I'm not sure when we'll have the bandwidth to do it.
@beabri
Copy link

@beabri beabri commented Sep 12, 2019

Hi all,
do you have any news about this issue?
Thank you so much.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@pavelevap pavelevap

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
4.0-beta2 → 4.0-beta3
  
Awaiting triage
Milestone
No milestone
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants
@candrews @borekb @pavelevap @beabri
You can’t perform that action at this time.