Bob, Updating Rev each time a bug fix is made, could be a dicey proposition, as typcially after a bug is fixed, there still should be unit testing, then more inside testing, then beta testing, then rc testing, etc. to make sure fixing the bug didn't break other stuff. I think Rev has taken the position to do all this in the same cycle, which for a company with limited resources, is a good way (IMO) to go.
The existing architecture of course could do just as you suggest. But my biggest fear with a system like this would be we would never end up with a fairly stable release. The complexity of Rev could create unforseen problems when fixing one bug only to see a ripple effect of it creating many more. Richard, As I think you know, I use our own MagicCarpet updater (both automatic and manual), for all of our projects. I suppose I've got around 30-40 applications serviced by MagicCarpet in this way. My experience tells me for those programs which do not need internet access, it is better to go the manual update way, for the reasons I've already given-- mainly much less support hassle when individuals are in situations where they have no internet connection. best, Chipp _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
