Re: Y2K compliant? Informix 7.23 UC4 ?

I don't think 7.23.UC1 is a good choice for the year 2000. Check bug 60150 (or 78300). The engine is not able to recognize the 29-Feb-2000 as a valid date. jim lowry wrote: > > Thought I'd comment, seeing as how my name > was used...ha-ha 8-) > > We have chosen 7.23UC1 to enter 2000. We did not > base this on just Y2K... The changes in the engine > 7.23 to 7.3 would not allow us the time needed to > re-code for 7.3, test the code and then go back > into Y2K testing. > > So for those of you who have not picked the engine > to enter 2000... time is running out for code and > Y2K testing... remember, if the code does not work > you will have to either re-write and test, then do > Y2K or go back to the engine that worked with your > code and Y2K test from there. > > Good luck everyone 8-) > > Neil Truby wrote: > > > > jmhorn wrote in message <7o39gm$i7n$1@news.xmission.com>... > > > > > >I have recently discussed version 7.24 UC9 with Informix tech support, > > which > > >is not currently available for order. So I think there would be known > > issues > > >with everything up to that point. > > > > Well, it should mean that they've had a stab at resolving all the Y2K > > issues known about to the freeze date. But there's no guarantee that they > > will have been done correctly and, as Jim Lowry said, no guarantee that new > > "features" will not have been introduced. > > > > My personal view is that anyone doing serious Y2K testing really should have > > have settled on a chosen release with a few weeks at the very latest. Will > > there be time to evaluate 7.24UC9, or any forthcoming release, before Y2k > > testing? > > > > Neil Truby > > Londis Stores > > Hampton Hill, UK