[Qgis-developer] configuration lost when running 2.0

[Sandro Santilli]

Andrea, I also run both 1.8 and 2.0, not saying it should be forbidden.
But I don't really understand why they need to have two different
configurations.

As a test, I tried symlinking ~/.config/QGIS to ~/.config/QuantumGIS
and ~/.config/QGIS/QGIS2.conf to ~/.aconfig/QGIS/QGIS.conf

At that point qgis-2.0 starts correctly and all my database connections
are there. 

--strk;

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:50:48PM +0200, Andrea Peri wrote:
> I give my fresh experience. :)
> 
> I'm running with both qgis (1.8 and 1.9 dev).
> 
> I need use both because I have an important project created from a
> group of workers.
> 
> On qgis 1.8
> Now I need to apply it on a qgis 1.9
> But because the importing on qgis 1.9 has lost me
> 
> surely transparency and perhaps something on label setting.
> 
> I need constantly to move from qgis 1.8 and 1.9 to manually reset
> every single layer.
> 
> My experience is that is absolutely need to use both in the same machine.
> 
> In the first period of transiction.
> Almost for who has important qgis 1.8 project that don't want lost.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andrea.
> 
> 
> 
> >on Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:57:28PM +1000, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> >>* That doesn't change the issue. The settings will still be moved and reset a*>>* fresh using --configpath.*>
> >Yes, but it won't be the default.
> >
> >>* You would be surprised how many want to run bn*>
> >I surely want to run 1.8 if 2.0 doesn't know about my connections :)
> >
> >My point here is what should the default be ?
> >
> >The current default is that upgrading from 1.8 to 2.0 creates a fresh
> >configuration, loosing the old one (plugins included).
> >I find this pretty annoying, as a user.
> >
> >If I understand correctly, the risk with using the same configuration
> >with both 1.8 and 2.0 is that configuration changes I make while running
> >with 1.8 would be immediately visible when running 2.0, and vice-versa.
> >Sounds like a feature to me, not like a problem. So, what's the problem
> >with that, exactly ?
> >
> >--strk;