John Plocher wrote: > [Let's drop this thread - it has almost nothing to do with the > case in the Subject line anymore...] > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> I still think the project team needs to pick either Patch or Micro. > > From where I sit, the difference between patch and micro is > so thin as to be immaterial - from an ARC perspective.
and from where I sit the difference is HUGE. It is all about the principle of least surprise. Note also that for many features having patch binding means that the "install/config" of them is reversable (without depending on backups or ZFS snapshots!) A minor release binding implies an upgrade or fresh install which is seen differently by our customers. This is all because of how we build Minor release updates (like Solaris 10 update MM/YY) as a series of patches. > Certainly, there are operational differences between the two, > but architecturally, I've been doing this gig for over a decade > and I *still* can't nail down any concrete differences between > them :-) > I'd be just as happy if "Patch" simply went away. With IPS and > the repos, it probably will. It isn't strictly IPS that allows patch binding to go away but the possibility in change of release model that it brings. Don't confuse "patchadd" with patch binding they aren't quite the same but for now patching binding implies installation maybe via "patchadd" with IPS that does change. -- Darren J Moffat
