[volunteergrid2-l] Expiring

[Billy Earney]

I agree.  I plan on upgrading as soon as a GA is released, but there could
be instances where someone wants to wait to see if any bugs develop, or they
have some type of dependency issue, that causes them to be a version behind
from time to time.

I could see myself waiting a week after a release just to see that bugs are
not introduced into the code.  But others may want to wait a little longer.
 Do we want to enforce or encourage users to wait for a certain amount of
time after a release before upgrading to the newest version of tahoe-lafs?

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Shawn Willden <shawn at willden.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Billy Earney <billy.earney at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I agree that a policy for settings need to be in place.  Also, we might
>> want to enforce that the tahoe-lafs version not be too old.  (maybe no more
>> than 2 versions old, which I believe at this time is 1.7x)
>
>
> As a general policy, I think no more than two versions old is good, BUT I
> think as soon as the new release comes out that shows available storage,
> everyone should upgrade to that one.  Being able to see how much space is
> available in the grid is really important.
>
> Likewise, in some future release basic accounting will come available, so I
> think that one might also be a "mandatory" upgrade which we want to get
> deployed more quickly than the two-version rule.
>
> --
> Shawn
>
> _______________________________________________
> volunteergrid2-l mailing list
> volunteergrid2-l at tahoe-lafs.org
> http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volunteergrid2-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/volunteergrid2-l/attachments/20110115/1d6bba95/attachment-0001.html>