New Zenner
- Join Date:
- Mar 2006
- Location:
- Durham, UK
- Posts:
- 78
- Plugin Contributions:
- 0
[Done v1.3.6] bug with state selection check on registration
Woodymon:
I do understand the frustation in not having a patch/bug fix in hand when you need it. I think I may have to aplogise for giving you entirely the wrong impression. I will admit to feeling a bit anxious when the 1.3.2 bug first appeared. But that was only because we had some high-value products and the loss of the tax on just one would have cost more than the whole site. This time round it's completely different. So what if the odd customer gets in a bit of a muddle the first time they try to create an account? Hardly worth getting your knickers in a twist over is it?
I thought I'd made that clear in an earlier post... > imac:
Personally I find that coding is painstaking work, best done at your own pace, without deadlines or anxious bystanders breathing down your neck. Why else would I have said this? ... > imac:
... Me, I'd rather have it good than Tuesday. :yes: The ONLY point I was taking issue with was... > jetx:
A site can be completely replaced by a previous version in less than 30 minutes, depending upon connection speeds; hardly any work. You said it yourself .... > Woodymon:
However the steps you describe above are the same steps one would have to do with ANY upgrade and/or bugfix, requiring a sql patch or not. So, if the steps you need to make to roll back are the same steps you need to roll forwards, then rocking-and-rolling back over the same ground would add up to nearly twice the work.
Woodymon:Regarding "you'd also want to 'double-check' functioning of catalog and admin to make sure that nothing had been broken", I do this following EACH and EVERY new installation, upgrade or patch (or rollback)? Doesn't everyone? Of course. What makes you think I don't? > Woodymon:
Once you do it a couple of times you will understand how difficult it is not (but agreed it can be time consuming). So we've finally established that it IS time consuming after all.
The defence rests yer honour. :smile: > Woodymon:
Analyzing the cost to upgrade or patch (or rollback) versus the risk of continuing to run older (or newer) software/code is just part of the cost of managing an ecomm shop (or when working with technolgy in general). So get used to budgeting that potential risk/time requirement into your performa statements, consulting estimates and support/maintenance contracts. Mmm... That's a sticky one. A coupla years ago things were different, but the trouble now is that the international corporations who supply EPOS and accounting systems (you know who I mean!) are starting to offer me-too versions of ZC and the like, which integrate 'seamlessly' into client's existing systems, with the prospect of reduce staffing costs by up to two thirds with one-stop points of entry. This is neither the time nor the place to get into that, but suffice it to say that building the kind of margin for error you're talking about into your costings is not getting easier!
Woodymon:Linda has communicated that a release date announcement for v.1.36 will not happen. It will be out when it is out. And we have to respect that. So end of that discussion. ;-) Which discussion is that? The one about a minor bug in 1.3.5? Or about how much less time it takes to roll back than roll forward? Or about where ZC ought to locate itself in the ecommerce landscape of the immediate future? IMHO the first 2 are, as Frank Zappa used to say, just noodles. It's only the last one that really concerns me. I suspect I'll be needing to discuss that for quite some time to come. But, like I said, not here :smile: