Re[2]: WARNING: Say "NO" to patched versions!

Here's some more information on this subject: It is advantageous to be on the latest version because of the upcoming changes regarding the product life cycles, starting Jan. 1, 1998. You can go to this page to read about it: http://www.informix.com/informix/services/ilink/plc/plc.htm But here's an example: Product Release Date OnLine 7.23 5/97 OnLine 7.22 3/97 OnLine 7.22 will receive interim releases and patches for one year after the next version (7.23) is released. This means that 7.22 will receive interim fixes and patches only until 5/98. Here is a description of interim releases and patches from the web page (but basically we're talking about emergency situations): Interim Releases Between maintenance releases, fixes to critical problems may be distributed via an interim release. Interim releases receive significant quality assurance testing; however, in the interest of providing fixes in a timely fashion, those addressed in interim releases receive a subset of the tests performed on full releases. Interim releases are incorporated into the next maintenance release on a specific platform. Patches There are two types of patches: Diagnostic patches, which assist in problem resolution. In some instances, Informix may provide a diagnostic patch to fix a defect believed to be the root of a system problem. If the problem disappears, the hypothesis is verified; if not, diagnosis continues. Emergency patches, which provide a very fast solution for down systems. Informix defines emergency patches as those necessary to keep critical systems running. They are not extensively tested, nor are they necessarily designed for normal production use. If an emergency or diagnostic patch accomplishes the intended goal, a permanent solution will be incorporated into the next interim release. The emergency or diagnostic patch will cease to be supported 60 days after the interim release is made available. Dianne ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: WARNING: Say "NO" to patched versions! Author: Mike Segel <Postmaster@127.0.0.1> at INTERNET Date: 10/1/97 4:59 PM 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. *****************************