Wednesday 02 July 2008 2:07:13 pm
I don't know if it's safe to assume they are more stable, not just because they are RC but because they contain some complex fixes. The URL alias system introduced in 3.10 and the multilingual features in 3.9+ (or was it .8?) use bit logic. The major bugs in those two systems are caused by incorrect bit logic and the code is very complex. Those two factors also contribute to the complexity of fixing those bugs. I'm sure eZ staff has done all they can to ensure the fixes are correct, but given their complexity it was a wise decision to go to RC stage first. The RCs are really meant to be used on test installs, not on production sites. New installs with the RC are less of a problem than upgrades. When upgrading to e.g. 4.0.1rc1 all custom URL aliases will be gone. This might also be the case for the final release, but at least they're not excluding the possibility of an upgrade script. That very issue is critical for one of our production sites which means it can't be upgraded to 4.0.1rc1. Instead I have installed a separate copy of the site on the development server and copied the RC sources over it. Another issue that could matter is support. RCs are unstable releases so it's quite likely you can't get support for them. I don't know eZ's policy on that matter, but it wouldn't surprise me. Yes, the 3.10.0 and 4.0.0 have a lot of issues that have been fixed by now, but none of them block the use of those releases in production sites. The URL alias system occasionally throws a fit, but nothing I can't recover manually. And so far, each hickup only prevented editing the site, never the reading part. And a monolingual site is absolutely safe.
Hans
http://blog.hansmelis.be
|