For a new installation I would go gor 3.4rc6. There shouldn’t be
any major bugs left. It will probably become 3.4 very soon.
If using a release candidate bothers you, then 3.2.2 is the
latest “stable” release, but it has it’s own bugs. All
software has bugs.
I agree that the standalone httpd is very fast, but I don’t think
it would be with multiple users trying to use it at the same time
becuase it can only handle one request at a time. It would be
interesting to see if it could fork children to handle requests
like Apache and still retain it’s speed advantage. It sure would
simplify RT installation for a lot of people.
One advantage of using RT instead of plain e-mail for support
is the possibility to do workflow so that multi-step tasks
are completed faster and more accurately.
-ToddOn Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 08:39:03PM -0800, James Moore wrote:
Hey folks, I’m evaluating RT for use here at Omni to get us away from
doing all of our support mail via Apple Mail/IMAP. I’ve got 3.2.3
running on my machine by following one of the excellent walkthrus I
found but I’ve got some questions:
It seems like some people here are using the development snapshots.
Which branch (3.2, 3.3, 3.4) should we be using for a brand-new
installation and why?
Is anyone using the standalone httpd in a production environment?
Right now on my workstation it’s serving pages faster than Apache is
and I like the idea of having something basic to do just this one task
on the production server.
How do people use the CLI? It seems like it’s got some potential for
more than just doing simple tasks from the cmd-line.
If you moved away from doing support via email to RT what were some
of things that you experienced that you weren’t expecting?
Thanks for your help.
RT Administrator and Developer training is coming to your town soon!
(Boston, San Francisco, Austin, Sydney) Contact email@example.com
Be sure to check out the RT Wiki at http://wiki.bestpractical.com