In my experience most updates do not require template changes, and are
bug fixes. If you have already incoroprated a patch posted on the list
then there is no need to upgrade to the new version. Also when a feature
is released you do not need to upgrade unless you wish to use that
feature.
The v 2.32 upgrade added functionality of web certs, no other major
changes, so I have put 2.32 in a seperate directory, have disabled domain
name registration in that script and only reference it for web certs, and
am still using 2.31 for registrations.
The template changes for 2.32 were to add a whole new directory of
templates. reg_system was left alone.
Saved me the effort of having to import all of my changes to a new version
of the script.
Just because a new version comes out it does not mean you need to upgrade
your scripts, If you dont see the value of the upgrade to your business
use the scripts that have been modified to your specs and have been
stable. That is just good business sense.
Heck, with all the mods I have done my reg_system is three times the size
of the distribution version and if i upgraded at each release my fingers
would be bleedng from keyboard injuries :)
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Duane Cook
wrote:
>
> I agree, with Joe and Dave, when you release new version every few weeks
> with some minor fixes
> or some new features that no one wants (multilingual is a good example) then
> we are forced to redo our systems as well. It does seem like you are more
> concerned
> about add new features, then fixing bugs, and adding the things people have
> been requesting for months, ie, being able to export list of all domains.
>
> Another example would be the SSL certificates. Doesn't it make more sense
> to get the domain registration
> system working 100% and then worry about providing other services such as
> SSL certificates?
>
> Perhaps you should have a new version released once per year, that way it would
> give you much more time to test things thoroughly and all things can be
> discussed
> on the mailing lists.
>
> Also when you release new versions you don't just release the update, you
> release whole new version
> and us who have customized the templates and cgi's, to suit our needs have
> to start from scratch
> every time.
>
> If you don't want to release a new version on an annual basis, could you
> not simply build the code in a
> more modulator way, so you can just release the updates or patches only???
>
> My 2 Cents
> Duane
>
>
> At 10:39 AM 4/17/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >The concern is that we have to maintain bug fixes and keep patching them
> >into multiple updates to the code. Features are more important than bug
> >fixes in your mind, even when the bug fixes are handed to you.
> >
> >The whole 'value' of OpenSRS was to have an open code base that people can
> >contribute to. But you've dismissed that entire value by failing to pay
> >attention to the people who report the issues.
> >
> >Frankly, I'm very frustrated with having to track a list of known bugs in
> >the programs and the patches people have provided, and then compare against
> >each new release to find out if you fixed the problem or not. It appears to
> >take 3-4 updates before a bug is fixed. You don't mention whether you fixed
> >the bugs or not in your release notes. So all the work is left to us.
> >
> >When people supply patches that _do_ solve the problem and _don't_ break
> >anything is it too much to ask that you implement them? Or at least
> >acknowledge that you haven't solved the problem in your release notes?
> >
> >On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 04:20:05PM -0400, Charles Daminato wrote:
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > It would be nice if we can fix all reported bugs - but you make it sound
> > > like a) we don't care, and b) we do nothing at all. We're aware of the
> > > issues, and we work on them all as fast as we can, given our resources and
> > > the way things work out. While it would be nice for us to jump on
> > > everything on our list, things crop up from time to time that are out of
> > > our control and we have to work on that first - such as an NSI downtime
> > > that squirted out some problems (bug's been fixed, data errors are being
> > > worked on - we want to be 100% sure that we fix it right, and once).
> > >
> > > Charles Daminato
> > > TUCOWS Product Manager
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Dave Warren wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's too bad that OpenSRS can't be bothered to fix all the reported bugs.
> > > > There's junk in there that was reported over a year ago that is still
> > > > broken.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "411" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: "Robert L Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 12:59 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: TV - @ for 1 deal.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > simply remove the price from the template and
> > > > > say something like "this domain costs more; click the link to find out
> > > > > the actual price".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ========================================================
> > > > Dave Warren,
> > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Pager: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > ========================================================
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >--
> >Joe Rhett Chief Technology Officer
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ISite Services, Inc.
> >
> >PGP keys and contact information: http://www.noc.isite.net/Staff/
>
