On 01/10/2015 13:22, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 9/29/2015 8:02 PM, James <wirel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> Another point of concern. When radically changing infrastructure like this, >> why not just do the entire thing under a new DNS and have both online for a >> while, until the new site if vetted and the actual real bugs worked out? > > Well... not sure how that would work, since we are not changing domain > names, only redesigning the site. > > What I would do if I was a web dev is just set up a test site, then set > up the development site for the customer under a subdirectory, ie: > > https://mycustomtestingsite.com/customer-a/index.html
Yes, that's the sane way >> Also, your company should force this contractor to take a large liability >> policy, in the name of your company, should things go really fubar.... > > Interesting idea. Not sure how well it would go over. > > Is that a common thing in the industry for large corporate redesigns > like this? Oh yes, most definitely if the contractor is being paid to provide an entire solution end-to-end. Not so much if they are just providing a small definite component of a larger system that you control and direct. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
