Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 26 2017, @01:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the well-recommended dept.

The Register is reporting that Microsoft recommends that you NOT install the recommended .NET Framework 4.7 update:

Earlier this month, Microsoft gave the world .NET Framework 4.7 and urged users to install it for the usual reasons: more fun bits to play with and a security improvements.

But two days later the company urged Exchange users not to install it ASAP, because it hadn't validated it yet. Last Friday - 10 days after the launch of the new code - it reminded users of Lync and Skype for Business not to install it either.

[...] "We are in the process of validating Exchange Server on the .NET Framework 4.7, but the work is not yet complete".

While that validation is happening, "please delay this particular .NET update on your Exchange servers".

If you followed the original recommendation and installed the framework, and now wish to follow their new recommendation, then Microsoft recommends you follow these instructions to roll it back.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:55AM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:55AM (#531823) Homepage
    Because you should never roll back? Keep the end-users' view of history linear for sanity. They should immediately push out "new" versions identical to the old versions, just re-labelled to look modern. Rollback creates a DAG of versions, which is not a complete order, and that makes "do I need to upgrade?" questions not always answerable. A linear history is the only thing an installation should ever see.

    Our biggest fear at $DAYJOB is rollbacks, we never want any of our $$$-paying clients to have to do one. If one client rolls back, we have to further branch our release tree, and we simply don't have the staff or time to manage that complexity. Fortunately, ``git revert'' is moving forwards, so if we can get reverts out quickly enough, everyone thinks we're moving forwards all the time, even if we've shipped them a few bugs briefly.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 27 2017, @09:00PM

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday June 27 2017, @09:00PM (#532122) Journal

    They should immediately push out "new" versions identical to the old versions, just re-labelled to look modern.

    Yeah, it didn't occur to me that's how to do it. I agree with you on roll backs. They rarely, if ever work. Same with 'system restore'. That one fucks up things royally.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..