Copied to clipboard

Flag this post as spam?

This post will be reported to the moderators as potential spam to be looked at

  • Adam Prendergast 33 posts 77 karma points MVP c-trib
    Feb 16, 2012 @ 18:08
    Adam Prendergast

    Courier - Inconsistent performance (v

    Hi all,

    I just wondered how everyone else is getting on with Courier. I think it's a great tool however it only seems to work consistently when uploading items individually.

    This does beat having to manually create the same doctypes on each environment (dev, staging, live) but it would be better if the bulk upload worked more consistently.

    In terms of the main content tree I can get a successful 'courier' of an item and it's children however the child item urls (link to document) values are wrong. They are always rooted.

    Basically I can only get the package to work correctly for individual items. Will 2.6 solve this or do I have a more localised issue?

    I have recently upgraded from v 2.1 to v



  • Jason 23 posts 72 karma points
    Feb 17, 2012 @ 18:09

    I have noticed this issue  as well. Im very interested in the answer to this question



  • Paul Kaplan 86 posts 139 karma points
    Feb 18, 2012 @ 22:19
    Paul Kaplan

    My comments are regarding the 2.6 beta.  I gave up on, since Per tells us the way forward is 2.6.

    We're probably going to give up on Courier altogether, as appealing as it seems.

    I would love to have Umbraco prove me wrong, but I have already spent enough time with Courier, to the point where my boss has said it's time to move on.

    And yes, we still love Umbraco!

    Here are my issues:

    I'm still having problems with included files such as .css

    There seems to be a regression with regards to preserving the structure of templates.

    Plus a few more that I've already forgotten.

    In general, Courier seems to be unstable, and I'm not yet convinced that Umbraco will address the issues in a timely manner.  Perhaps if we were a premium customer they would, but I cannot convince my company's management to spend 3K Euro per year for that.

    In addition to the above, I had mentioned in an earlier post that the overall workflow would make it difficult for us to use.  That is, you have to log on from the originating instance, transfer to the target instance, then log on to the target instance and accept the changes. I understand that the requirement of logging on to the target instance might be a requirement for some users, but it's one too many steps for our editors.

    Because of all this, I think we're going to wind up implementing our own crude but hopefully workable method of copying from the staging server to the production server.

Please Sign in or register to post replies

Write your reply to: