[NOT A BUG] V4.4.1 patches

[ckh]

I haven't updated my installations yet of whmcs, so I'm wondering if the patches have been applied to the latest stable release or do you have to update and then come to the forum, download the patches and then apply them?

 

I just downloaded whmcs 4.4.1 and it doesn't look like the files have been updated since 13 Dec 2010 (no patches).

[easyhosting]

I haven't updated my installations yet of whmcs, so I'm wondering if the patches have been applied to the latest stable release or do you have to update and then come to the forum, download the patches and then apply them?

 

I just downloaded whmcs 4.4.1 and it doesn't look like the files have been updated since 13 Dec 2010 (no patches).

 

apply the patches after you have installed version 4.4.1

[Grizzlyware Josh]

Would it be an awesome idea for the stable to have all the patches, or is that to obvious?

[Matt]

It wouldn't be very helpful to people doing that as it would leave people not knowing which patches they have and which they don't if the release package was constantly changing.

 

Quite simply if you're experiencing one of the problems the patches address, you should apply the ones you need, otherwise you don't need to worry about them.

 

Matt

[GGWH-James]

It wouldn't be very helpful to people doing that as it would leave people not knowing which patches they have and which they don't if the release package was constantly changing.

 

You could do a few things with respect to this:

1. Increase the minor version (4.4.x or 4.4.1.x) with each patch update applied to the relase build. However, I would not suggest doing this more frequently then once per week though; essentially, rolling up the patches into the release build on a scheduled basis. Users would know to install any patches issued after the release date manually as they were not included within the build that they initially installed.
   
2. Keep the version number (4.4.1) and apply patches to it as often as you like, on a per patch basis even. Update the download description with the date of the last update made to the archive. Users would know to install any patches issued after that date manually as they were not included within the build that they initially installed.
   

There are other options as well, but those are just a couple of choices. However, out of the two above, #1 would be the most ideal of them.

Edited December 22, 2010 by GGWH-James

[Matt]

Of course, and Number 1 is what we already do if patches warrant it, but no more frequently than monthly. But still the point remains that rolling them into the stable release silently would not help anyone, neither end users in knowing what they have nor us in providing support.

 

Matt

[GGWH-James]

Of course, and Number 1 is what we already do if patches warrant it, but no more frequently than monthly. But still the point remains that rolling them into the stable release silently would not help anyone, neither end users in knowing what they have nor us in providing support.

 

Matt

Agreed. Silent rebuilds without versioning changes are less than ideal; to say the least.

[Redsign]

It wouldn't be very helpful to people doing that as it would leave people not knowing which patches they have and which they don't if the release package was constantly changing.

 

Quite simply if you're experiencing one of the problems the patches address, you should apply the ones you need, otherwise you don't need to worry about them.

 

Matt

 

Agreed. Silent rebuilds without versioning changes are less than ideal; to say the least.

 

Going by the logic of 'don't apply the patches till you need them', would it not make sense to roll them into the main release, then you're less likely to need the patches to apply..?

 

If that makes sense, then if you've missed a particular patch, you'll experience the issue and apply that patch..

[GGWH-James]

All that I was saying there is that not updating the the version number is not a good idea; silent updates are less than ideal for what should be obvious reasons. I do think that patches should be incorporated into the release build on a regularly set schedule, but the minor version (at minimum) would need to be updated with each new build.

Edited December 22, 2010 by GGWH-James