Re: WARNING: Say "NO" to patched versions!

Kerry Sainsbury wrote: > > At this years Informix Worldwide User Conference I learned that patched > versions of engines do not go through the same quality control procedure > that normal, scheduled, releases do. I formed the opinion that "patched" > versions were something I wanted to avoid at all costs. > I think that Informix also wants to avoid patched versions. I'm not sure we were part of the same discussion, but from what I remembered, the reason Informix did patches was that there occured a specific bug for a specific client on a specific machine type. So a patch was a quick fix to keep the customer happy. I was under the impression that patches were not the method of choice, but the method of last resort. I would have to concur that use patches as a last resort, and if they fail, go back to an earlier release which you know to work. I don't think anyone likes patches, especially Informix. (They can wreak havoc on distribution of set releases and upgrades.) -Mikey -- #include <std_disclaimer.h> /* Mike Segel (MS385) */ #include <No_Spam.h> #ifdef OFFENDED_BY_CONTENT The author takes no responsibility for this post. Any resemblence to a coherent rational thought is purely coincidence. -The Management. #endif ***************************** Due to AGIS's Refusal to Act Responsibly We are blocking all of their domains at the packet level. This block will exist until AGIS modifies their policies to conform to existing RFCs and net community standards. We encourage all ISPs and domain holders to do the same. *****************************