From: PHP U. <ph...@ch...> - 2003-07-23 13:04:04
|
I'm wondering what's the best version to use in a production environment? Am I correct in saying the current tar ball is 2.2.6 and since it's rather old I'd be better off installing a CVS version, latest R_ tag? It seems that R_2_3_0_62 is the newest one. I'm not quite sure I am reading the version number correctly, but it seems T_ tags are more beta the R_ tags. What's my best bet? |
From: shane <sh...@lo...> - 2003-07-23 14:42:11
|
On Wednesday 23 July 2003 09:04, PHP User wrote: > I'm wondering what's the best version to use in a production environment? > Am I correct in saying the current tar ball is 2.2.6 and since it's rather > old I'd be better off installing a CVS version, latest R_ tag? It seems > that R_2_3_0_62 is the newest one. I'm not quite sure I am reading the > version number correctly, but it seems T_ tags are more beta the R_ tags. > > What's my best bet? cvs is latest of the latest. There are some that run it in production (I'm one of them). The t_tags are "less beta" then current CVS. The r_tags are "even less beta" then the t_tags. Some of this is explained on: <URL: http://cvs.slashcode.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ > As far as what should you run? That depends on a lot, and mostly on your situation. The CVS is obviously the quickest one to have new features, and it's also the quickest to have bugs. For a while I was on 2.2.6, then upgraded to the r tags. Did that for a while. Then started using t_tags. Did that for a while too. Then decided to go full blown cvs. That decision was because if there's a show stopping bug in the t_tags, you're a) waiting for someone to fix it or submit a patch for it b) waiting for that to be applied to current cvs c) waiting for a new t_tag to be created. While, if I'm running CVS, I just update. Yes, it's life on the bleeding edge ;) If you go with CVS, make it a point to check the bugs list and patch list on Slash's sf page: <URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/slashcode/ > daily. Shane |
From: Jamie M. <ja...@mc...> - 2003-07-23 19:07:47
|
Shane's description of the various levels of CVS is quite correct, but I would quibble with this: sh...@lo... (shane) writes: > For a while I was on 2.2.6, then upgraded to the r tags. Did > that for a while. Then started using t_tags. Did that for a > while too. Then decided to go full blown cvs. > > That decision was because if there's a show stopping bug in the > t_tags, you're > a) waiting for someone to fix it or submit a patch for it > b) waiting for that to be applied to current cvs > c) waiting for a new t_tag to be created. > > While, if I'm running CVS, I just update. > > Yes, it's life on the bleeding edge ;) I would not recommend going beyond the T_ tags to "raw CVS" to anyone unless you have a specific problem that you know is fixed but not yet tagged. Every week we wrap up what we can commit sometime on Tuesday, and tag it with the next T_ number. On Wednesday that goes live on Slashdot. Minor bugs get fixed between Tuesday night and Wednesday night; if there are sneaky bugs (which happens pretty rarely, thankfully) they almost always get squashed on Thursday. Between Thursday and Tuesday, we don't guarantee that CVS is even usable... I may commit half of what I'm working on, and tell my co-workers to leave it alone until I can commit the rest. We don't make a habit of doing that, but there really is no guarantee that at any given time, what's in CVS will even *work*. Go ahead, ask me how many times we've committed syntax errors. It happens. You can wait a week to use tested code, right? So just stick with the T_ tags unless we've told you the fix you need is committed but not yet tagged. At any given time you're less than a week away from the code hot-off-our-fingers and that's pretty damn current. Everyone who doesn't want the bleeding edge, use the latest R_ tag. Yes we know the latest is months old at the moment, but we'll be doing another one in the next few weeks I think and you can catch yourself up then. The important thing is that any kind of reasonably recent CVS gives you a *much* better upgrade path than the 2.2.6 tarball. |