Phil wrote:
> Thats fine and dandy when you only have one box to upgrade. I think
> the original question is valid. .84 lasted what? Week and a half,
> maybe two.
Only too recently, I myself have argued in favor of a short waiting period
before upgrading -- precisely to avoid your typical "oopses" that
inevitably come with new releases. Though the equally typical response on
this list is usually something like you should be fired for not upgrading
immediately, lol, I hope, for future reference, that recent events will
prompt the developers to act with a bit more reservation towards those not
willing/able to upgrade the very same day.
Matt wrote:
> I understood your point perfectly. Why upgrade, using
> precious time, when another upgrade may be required very shortly,
> requiring said time to again be used. I am just pointing out a pitfall.
> There is always a good excuse not to do something. It is, however,
> exactly that. An excuse.
Your pitfall could easily be turned around to say: "I understand
developers rather have clients test out the product in the field, waiting
for feedback on bugs and errors, rather than using precious time to do
more thorough pre-release testing themselves, but this is just an excuse
for not doing their own homework." It sure were nice if we could assume
the absence of laziness on either side of the fence.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
