Cumulus Support

Just after some clarification on this addition.

Both the forum search & Google return no relevant hits, (Forum search none & Google a handful).
"FTP Now!" site:cumulus.hosiene.co.uk & "FTP Now" site:cumulus.hosiene.co.uk

Am I correct in the assumption that it only processes the content of the Web directory, and not the contents of Webfiles & it's Subs.

If that is the case, it would be worth adding an additional option of "FTP Webfiles!".

Personally, I find my local & remote static Webfiles to be poorly synchronised, thru my own fault,
as I tend to make minor changes; weatherstyle.css etc, directly on the remote copy with NP++ via Filezilla,
probably for no other reason than it requires less navigation.

Cheers

Phil

Edit:- I think from memory that was the function of File|Web Update in Cumulus 1.

It would also make it easier for new unexperienced users, as the setup procedure could just instruct them to run the new FTP Webfiles! command instead of baffling them with a new concept of "copying the contents of the Webfiles folder to the public_html folder" on their host.

All it does is start the FTP process that would normally run at your defined update interval. It is intended for people who make changes to their config and want to quickly test them without having to wait for maybe 15 minutes.

I see what you are suggesting, tbh it wouldn't be high on the todo list, and it *may* be fraught with problems if for example the FTP user doe not have the rights to create folders, or they had defined the wrong ftp root in the config - how many times have we seen that!

As far as I can recall File|Web Update in C1 did roughly the same as FTP Now in MX?

mcrossley wrote: ↑Sun 19 Apr 2020 10:48 pm As far as I can recall File|Web Update in C1 did roughly the same as FTP Now in MX?

Thanks Mark,

I stand corrected.
Had a look back at Cumulus 1 & it's help, you are correct, Web Update does essentially the same as FTP Now.
No ..\Webfiles included. The help also mentions that you need to manually upload the static files, in slightly different wording.

I can still see the merits of such a feature, but also see the pitfall as you mentioned above.

Cheers.

Phil.