5

Apparently, the SVN revision is different on SU than on SO/SF/meta. At the moment it's 3970 on the former and 3966 on the rest. This must mean that you guys don't really have an automated deployment process that builds the source in one click and deploys it automatically to all sites. The kind of one click deployment one Joel talks about all the time.

Or is it just that you have only deployed SU manually because it is beta?

3
  • 1
    Maybe there were SU-specific fixes that didn't require deploying to all sites?
    – Kyle Cronin
    Commented Jul 15, 2009 at 17:21
  • Kyle Cronin: But surely with an automated deployment process, this shouldn't be an issue.
    – DrJokepu
    Commented Jul 15, 2009 at 17:25
  • 2
    @DrJokepu: I imagine that deploying a new version requires a little downtime as the code is updated, and it makes sense not to do that unless it's necessary. I think being able to selectively deploy is a positive, not a negative.
    – Kyle Cronin
    Commented Jul 15, 2009 at 17:56

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
9

It took an extra four revisions to find just the right shade of blue. For the record, the revisions were:

3967: Bright Blue
3968: Electric Blue
3969: Laser Blue
3970: Eye-Melting Blue
2
  • Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
    – DrJokepu
    Commented Jul 15, 2009 at 17:31
  • Up-voted for humor. In reality, I like the colors :) Of course my monitor brightness is at about 30% :)
    – Jonathan Sampson
    Commented Jul 15, 2009 at 17:47
2

You seem to be implying that Jeff Atwood listens to any of Joel's 'rules'. Looking at any manner of evidence, this seems to be a vastly flawed opinion.

Also, why would anyone care about what SVN revision number any of the sites?

Proposed fix: Remove SVN revision number from page.

1

sometimes we do site specific builds. There is a one click build, just not one click "every site must be the same version" build.

You must log in to answer this question.