Nathan Kidd wrote:
>>> And +1 you can even rely on your distro to keep it up to date for you.
>> Upgrading or patching your company's version control system normally
>> requires an act of [insert your favorite diety here] due to the
>> potential risk(s). (Data loss, corruption, higly visible downtime seen
>> from peons to VPs, possible changes to scripts, tar, feathers,
>> pitchforks, ...) It's more of a +0.
>
> In my view *because* it is a critical component that you're updating,
> you want to have it done via a smooth, well-tested and secure mechanism
> (e.g. apt-get install). When CRITICAL SECURITY UPDATE comes out you
> really don't want to be scrambling to know what version do I have now?
> Did I download all the right pieces? Did I remember to update my apache
> module with matching versions too? Did I remember to restart apache?
> etc. etc. Distro-integrated updates make the process easy.
There's a real trade-off in the way this is handled in different
distributions, though. I'm most familiar with RedHat/Centos vs. fedora,
where the RH enterprise version (and the free Centos clone) provide
security and bugfix updates for a very long time, but almost never
introduce version-level updates or new features within the life of the
distro version. You can count on these to keep working the same way but
you won't get the nifty new stuff until you go to the next version of
the whole distro. Fedora is the opposite - the whole distro has a
short life cycle and even updates within a version may be version-level
changes in applications and there's not a whole lot of attention to
backwards compatibility.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 18 20:50:39 2007