It certainly is our intent that the latest if the "most stable", as in the one with the fewest possible bugs or issues. How could you possibly judge an earlier release to be "more" stable than the latest? By what metric, what special insight? For that to be true, you'd have to not care about any bug fixes subsequent, nor platform stability improvements, and also have knowledge that even we don't have.
3 Likes
@bravenel
The reason that I started this is because of a difficult situation that arose recently.
I had 2 clients that were on 2.3.4.x, and suddenly after many months of no system issues, suddenly they (I suspect) ran out of memory and began to fail.
(There are many other individuals who have reported such a situation.)
(I mitigated the issue, by putting in a reboot whenever free memory is low.)
Now, I want to state categorically, that in general, almost all, upgrades have only improved the system, and haven't broken previously stable systems. Indeed, I keep my hubs at the current level.
However, almost all isn't completely all, and that's why I investigated the possibility and the technicalities of going back to the last stable version of 2.3.3 or 2.3.2, etc. I wanted to find out how to keep these two client "away from the bleeding edge".
Not really possible. Your example actually proves the point. If a release is "stable", how could it "suddenly after many months" have an issue not previously seen? For all anyone knows, 2.3.2, or 2.3.3 or any given release could have a lurking issue.
All I can say is that the latest release is the best one. Not perfect, just best.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
