byoussin

As I have not received response yet, I presume that there is no simple solution.

For this reason I removed Advanced Ads from my site so you cannot see the unminified inline js in the page I have referenced.

But I think it is important to minify the inline js.

Thanks again for the plugin!

Yorman,
Thank you very much for your clarification. I understand my mistake about sitecheck and localhost.
As for my complaint about Core Integrity, I checked that it works on both localhost and the live site.
Thanks for your help and your great service!

Interesting is that Sucuri works fine my live site, baruchyoussin.com, which is supposed to be practically identical to the localhost site.
Both sites have 3 WP installs, baruchyoussin.com/en , baruchyoussin.com/ru , baruchyoussin.com/he (localhost/en , localhost/ru , localhost/he ), and on all three installs behavior is the same: Sucuri works fine on baruchyoussin.com and reports Invalid site on localhost.
Thanks for your help.

Correction: I mean that my site is now https://localhost/en , not https://localhost/en)

Correction: I wrote that “scheduling the auto backups at different times is not a good solution since various delays may cause the backups to to be fired by the same wp-cron run”.

In fact, the backups run by different instances of Revisr will be fired by wp-cron’s of their WP instances, which run separately.

I run wp-cron’s by cron jobs, and can schedule them for different times of the hour.

However, I would still be uncomfortable with the possibility that delays may cause clashes between git add and commit of different instances.

Hi Matt,
Thanks again for this great plugin.

Can you please let me know what you mean by different instances of Revisr on different WP installations causing a corrupt repo? Are you tracking the same files across multiple repos?

I have three different WP installations in three different directories, each having its own DB, to cover the three languages in which I write.

Each installation of WP has its own Revisr; this is what I mean by different instances of Revisr.

Each of these instances covers the entire site (that is, its repo is the root directory of the site, so that they use the same repo), and records the files that must be ignored, in the .gitignore file in the root directory of the site. Git commands that are issued by Revisr, also take into account the identical .gitignore files that I placed in each of the WP installation directories.

With that explained, each of the instances of Revisr will track the same files, without any possibility to deviate from this; the difference between them is only in the databases they back up, each one backing up the DB of its WP instance.

If I set automatic daily backups on all three instances, I have no way to indicate the times to fire these automatic backups, and they will be done at the times you have hard-coded (unless you hard-coded random times).

This means that the daily backups on all three Revisr instances will be fired simultaneously by three php processes.

These three concurrent processes will try simultaneously to back up the DBs, stage files and commit.

I do not think git has been designed for concurrent staging and committing in the same repo; different users/processes are supposed to use different repositories, and push/pull to sync them.

I have not been able to understand whether git will be able to manage this; the closest reference I have found, is this one that says that they have seen corrupt repos from concurrent fetches and pulls:
https://forums.perforce.com/index.php?/topic/3921-lock-file-preventing-concurrent-transactions/

Note that scheduling the auto backups at different times is not a good solution since various delays may cause the backups to to be fired by the same wp-cron run.

I think it would be cleaner and more efficient if one Revisr instance were able to back up all databases. In this case other instances may be removed, and all problems with multiple installations will be resolved, as far as I can understand.

If you do allow backing up more than one database, it would be a good idea not to limit it by WP databases. For example, for some time I have run Piwik analytics on my site, and it had its own database. It would be great if Revisr were able to back up all such databases run by other web applications.

Hope this helps.

I am glad you are working on this.

On the second thought, it is not clear for me whether Revisr instances on different instances of WP running simultaneously would not corrupt the git repo even if they try to commit simultaneously different files.

One solution would be to create a lock that would force one instance to wait if another one is doing its job.

Another option would be to have Revisr only on one instance of WP and in others use some other plugin – or just a cron job – to back up their databases at scheduled times.

After playing more with my configuration, I found that I do need Revisr in all instances of WP for the purpose of backing up the database since each Revisr backs up only the database of its instance.

With that, I have two feature requests:

1. For those backups for which the commit message is generated by Revisr, mention the install directory of WP in the commit message.
This refers to commits generated by pressing Backup Database button on Revisr dashboard, and to the scheduled automatic backups.
I can find this info from git diff afterwards but this requires work because the database diff is large.

2. Make an option for automatic backups to back up the database only, not the files.
The problem is that Revisr automatic backups need to be set in all instances of WP for DB purposes, and they would back up the same files.
I do not want to think what will happen if two git processes will attempt to commit the same files simultaneously, and this is what is going to happen since git does not allow setting specific time for automatic backups.

Thanks again.

After installing two more instances of WP, I found out that Revisr on each instance covers the entire site, not just the install directory of WP.

This is definitely a great feature, since (1) it allows to keep Revisr only on one of the instances of WP, and (2) Revisr covers also the files that are outside the install directories but inside the site.

I would suggest mentioning this great feature in the plugin description.

With that, I take back all what I said in my initial post.

Thanks again for the great plugin.

Sorry I did not make myself clear.
The default settings of Polylang changed the permalink structure and this broke my site.
I could not change these settings because the Settings tab did not show up; there were no tabs and the page showed the contents of the Languages tab only.
When I unistalled the plugin, the site got fixed but there were no languages, so that the new posts I wrote in new languages do not show correctly.
I am still looking for the ways to deal with languages.

I upgraded to 1.7.8 and it did not help, nothing changed.
I removed Polylang and this fixed everything.
Any other ideas to get Polylang running?
(I was thinking of creating different WordPress installs for different languages but this might be tricky as I do not want to change the permalinks for the existing posts in English and do not want to get additional domains.)

Yes, I removed it by first deactivating it and then by clicking on the red delete link in the Installed Plugins page.
And indeed, after I installed 1.7.7.1 from your site according to the Installation directions, all the languages I defined for 1.7.7 disappeared, so that I had to define them again.
Hope this helps.

Hi @jan Dembowski,
Thank you for your detailed reply. I have read it carefully, together with the review you have written and suggested as an example. I have also reread Forum Welcome.

I think I have understood your policy and am not going to violate it in the future.

I admit that some of the links I have posted in my reviews that you have deleted, clearly violate the policy of “no signatures or links with no associated question” stated in Forum Welcome. I should not have done that in the first place. However, this does not cover the removed links that I mentioned when I have started this thread, and quite a number of other redacted links in my review of W3 Total Cache plugin; I do not see how I could have considered them inappropriate based on Forum Welcome.

To the substance of my request of clarifying your policy: yes, your initial brief reply formulates it very clearly, and it is very nice of you to have done this:

Please keep the reviews on point and inside the review itself. Do not send visitors to an external site and don’t post to your own site, as an example.

Note that I emphasized the words inside the review itself. IMHO, this is not included in the guidance of the Forum Welcome:

Remember, though, the forum is not designed to be a link portal, so excessive linkage will be moderated, as might signatures or links with no associated question.

IMHO, my reading of “excessive linkage” does not include links that clearly have added value to a review or response to a support question.

Moreover, I find this policy of keeping inside the review itself not at all obvious to me and counterintuitive.

I am not saying this to argue against this policy or complain about removing my posts (reviews and a response to a support thread). Rather, I am arguing for the need to make this policy public and conspicuous.

I would also mention that I felt humiliated by the fact that my actions that I believed were certainly appropriate, turned out to be wrong. I am not saying this to complain, because you have clearly stated that you considered your policy informal, and thus you could not have prevented this.

However, now that you have formulated your policy, you have no excuse to consider it fully informal and subject others to similar misunderstandings.

It would be really nice if this policy were included in Forum Welcome. I think it would have been also helpful if a brief reference to this policy appeared in the guidance below the message box in which users post their message, after the existing guidance:

Allowed markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.

Put code in between backticks.

Did you include a link to your site, so that others can see the problem?

(The last line appears only if a new support thread is started, not for responses to support threads or in review threads. However, it would be great if the link policy guidance or a link to it appeared in all these cases.)

This will help authors overwhelmed with desire to share with others what they have published, to refrain from inserting links to their works ??

From the user’s point of view, I would suggest to formulate your policy in a most unambiguous way, something like this: no links to your site except to show the problem you are asking for help with. In particular, no links to your site in reviews and responses to support threads; rather, put all you want to say, inside your review or response. Also, do not try to create traffic to your site by any other means, e.g., by giving directions how to find it by search engines or by suggesting to go to your home page.

I think that such unambiguous formulation is really necessary because, as I mentioned, this policy is counterintuitive, at least, for me.

Hopefully, this will also reduce your workload as a moderator ??

Your link shows Captcha fine on my Chrome on Linux Ubuntu 12.04.

Well, I tried to explain that it does not do what is intended.