On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 13:16 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > I don't think we are talking about malicious updates here, just the risk > associated with any change. No matter how careful the vendor tests the > patches, they may still break something at the customers site. Also, > some updates require a daemon to be restarted. So if you have to > guarantee a certain service level, you don't want updates to happen at > random times on your production servers. You want to test them on your > test machines first, and when you are conviced they don't break anything > you deploy them on the production servers at a time that is convenient > to you. I think you are speaking of one extreme, but there are also others. There are many customers of RedHat who buy hardware from the RH HW compatibility list specifically because they know RH tests on that hardware. This alleviates the customer from having to re-test and gets the fixes into production faster. Who is going to test better RH or the Customer's IT guy? <--- that's not a direct question, that's something to ponder. -Jim P. -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
