Licensing Suggestion

WB · October 6th, 2005, 02:45 PM

omegatron/Michael:

With each successive release of ReviewPost, there appears to be bugs that are introduced and/or reintroduced, some of which were previously corrected.

For most of us, some of the bugs can be quite severe and may affect our main sites and cause our users distress.

I'd like to suggest that on a case-by-case basis, that the RP license be modified to allow a 'test' install, assuming that said test install is not open to the public (protected behind a realm, etc.).

I think that would help a lot of us ferret out bugs without fear of messing up our main installs.

It would also help find the bugs earlier rather than later as I think a lot of folks may delay upgrading waiting for the bugs to shake out.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Chuck S · October 6th, 2005, 03:23 PM

Actually there are no reintroduced bugs that we have found as they are fixed as they are found.

Arnie thought and reported something like that till he found out indeed by mistake he was uploading older files he helped me test with. Once he downloaded the current build at the time all is okay.

Being since you where a tester as well this could be the case.

However our case has always been as long as its not reachable by the internet you can install a test site

WB · October 6th, 2005, 03:58 PM

<grin>, at least on our end we've downloaded a build that had an error that was fixed in a prior build and then fixed again in a subsequent build. Maybe we're just unlucky based on when we download several builds. :-) It wasn't the test builds though since I was using a separate hierarchy for those updates.

When you say 'as its not reachable by the internet' does that mean not accessible or not available?

What I'd like to do would be to put a duplicate test install on our backup box. I'd protect the whole folder behind a realm so that it wouldn't be accessible to anyone but me but it would still be 'available' over the Internet but not accessible to anyone.

Is that okay?

Thanks.

Chuck S · October 6th, 2005, 04:38 PM

well the current thread I read by you I can not get code to execute when html is off so unless I can in the current build I can not call it a bug.

We print the html as I showed you but do not execute it. I gave a very graphic example in that post.

As long as I can not reach it by the internet

WB · October 6th, 2005, 04:41 PM

Yes, responded back to that post as we are seeing something different on end but that wasn't the reference I was talking about in my last post.

Sorry I'm still not following 'can not reach it' from the Internet. Is the setup I posted in my prior post okay if we do it that way?

Thanks.

Chuck S · October 6th, 2005, 05:12 PM

I can not be able to pull it up in my browser

WB · October 6th, 2005, 05:18 PM

It won't pull up per se. Here's an example of what I'm suggesting:

http://ads.imaging-resource.com/phpInfo.php

The realm would block all access in the folder.

Would that be okay? We'd really like to be able to test but don't want to run afoul of the licensing.

Thanks.

Chuck S · October 6th, 2005, 05:28 PM

No one is going to bust you for that provided it is not a long term thing your doing. Maybe a week or two but usually test copy is intranet not internet

WB · October 6th, 2005, 05:32 PM

Thanks, I'll just move it out of the html root when I'm not testing and keep the realm on it when it is in the html root.

Our company works out of diverse locations, so no intranet, everything is done over the Internet.