Problem upgrading from 6.1 to 6.2.6309

[Phil Cruz]

I'm upgrading Mura from 6.1.5898 to the latest 6.2.6309. I'm running CF10 on Windows. So I click to update the core files and it runs and spits out

"Your core files have been updated to version 6.1.6309." which is odd because I'm expecting 6.2.6309. Also I see this

http://screencast.com/t/sjAT8t8W

After that I can't bring up any mura pages and I get:

Message: Variable SESSION is undefined.
	StackTrace: coldfusion.runtime.UndefinedVariableException: Variable SESSION is undefined.
		at coldfusion.runtime.CfJspPage._get(CfJspPage.java:312)
		at coldfusion.runtime.CfJspPage._get(CfJspPage.java:296)
		at coldfusion.runtime.CfJspPage._autoscalarize(CfJspPage.java:1518)
		at coldfusion.runtime.CfJspPage._autoscalarize(CfJspPage.java:1482)
		at cfloginManager2ecfc893417982$funcLOGOUT.runFunction(D:\http\site\www\requirements\mura\login\loginManager.cfc:315)

Looking in that CFC I see

<cffunction name="setUserStructDefaults" output="false" access="public" returntype="void">

<cfset var user="">

<cfif not structKeyExists(session,"mura")>

<cfif yesNoFormat(variables.configBean.getValue("useLegacySessions")) 

and len(getAuthUser()) and isValid("UUID",listFirst(getAuthUser(),"^"))>

<cfset user=read(listFirst(getAuthUser(),"^"))>

<cfset variables.userUtility.setUserStruct(user.getAllValues())>

<cfelse>

<cfset variables.userUtility.setUserStruct()>

</cfif>

</cfif>

<cfparam name="session.mura.membershipids" default="" />

</cffunction>

I restarted CF, clear template cache and still no joy. What could be the problem? 

Thanks,

Phil

[Phil Cruz]

I went looking through the settings.ini for anything that might relate to sessions and I saw sessiontimeout=0 so changed it to sessiontimeout=180 and I can now access the site. From the docs:

>sessiontimeout

>Description: Set the amount of time a user can leave an admin screen open before being automatically logged out. If set to 0 then the auto logout functionily will not execute. Defaults to 180.

Seems like 0 is a valid value. So is this a bug?

-Phil