| 1 |
On 01/10/2015 13:22, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 9/29/2015 8:02 PM, James <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Another point of concern. When radically changing infrastructure like this, |
| 4 |
>> why not just do the entire thing under a new DNS and have both online for a |
| 5 |
>> while, until the new site if vetted and the actual real bugs worked out? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Well... not sure how that would work, since we are not changing domain |
| 8 |
> names, only redesigning the site. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> What I would do if I was a web dev is just set up a test site, then set |
| 11 |
> up the development site for the customer under a subdirectory, ie: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> https://mycustomtestingsite.com/customer-a/index.html |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Yes, that's the sane way |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> Also, your company should force this contractor to take a large liability |
| 18 |
>> policy, in the name of your company, should things go really fubar.... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Interesting idea. Not sure how well it would go over. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Is that a common thing in the industry for large corporate redesigns |
| 23 |
> like this? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Oh yes, most definitely if the contractor is being paid to provide an |
| 26 |
entire solution end-to-end. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Not so much if they are just providing a small definite component of a |
| 29 |
larger system that you control and direct. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives