RE: Please read this... Harkpabst Meliantrop 20.Aug.03 04:56 AM a Web browser General All ReleasesAll Platforms
i>]Posted by Steve Mullen:
font color="blue">]Each Critical Fixpack is incremental, and inclusive of all
fixes in previous CF's (contrary to assertions in this thread)./font>]/i>]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but: While the CFs themselves b>]are/b>]
incremental (which is well understood), the installers are b>]not/b>].
At least that's what happend to me when I tried to update from 6.0.1CF1 to
6.0.1CF2. I had to search for the old 6.0.1CF1 installer to remove CF1 and then
start the 6.0.1CF2 installer to finally install CF2. Right or wrong? Is that
any better than it was in R5?
The one i>]real difference/i>] (apart from the non-incremental installer
packages mentioned above) that you i>]silenty/i>] introduced when moving
form R5 to R6 is, that now e.g. 6.0.1 and 6.0.2 are considered different code
streams (that are maintained differently). While this was technically true in
R5 and R4 (can't talk about earlier releases), this is a 180 degree change in
In R5 e.g. 5.0.9 was considered the only successor of all 5.0.8 releases. You
now stress the fact, that customers are very cautious when upgrading to a new
release, but I can't fully support that point. It was back in R5 when customers
only had the chance to either take all (the new release features plus fixes
plus possibly new bugs) or nothing. With the new release schema in R6, this
looks much less critical to me, as bugfixes to earlier releases are
incorporated into the latest code stream and than pushed downwards to the prior
release (if I got you right).
I agree to that the new concept is more powerfull in general, but it's
something you have to really think about with every new release. It's by no
means intuitive and so confusion is here to stay as well, I predict.
i>]font color="blue">]...they allow us a competitive advantage to the
I thought that this was a technical forum, not marketing ...