From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B55013838B for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:03:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00C9521C00B; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4111E0810 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:02:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh4rB-0004yK-Vq for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:02:50 +0200 Received: from rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com ([71.40.157.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:02:49 +0200 Received: from wireless by rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:02:49 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: James Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Major site redesign, SEO, and 301 redirects Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:02:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <560AEDFA.9000706@libertytrek.org> <560AF6ED.4010404@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 71.40.157.251 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0 SeaMonkey/2.35) X-Archives-Salt: 5ec42e3f-6bf4-4929-8e63-23af7f6f5fd1 X-Archives-Hash: 0dfe230f4925f4cbcdef0c043450b2ce Alan McKinnon gmail.com> writes: > On 29/09/2015 22:19, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On 29 September 2015 22:00:58 CEST, Tanstaafl libertytrek.org> wrote: > > Most companies I deal with wouldn't even let the people responsible for the databases to reconfigure the > storage for said database directly. > I agree with Joost, needing access to all your DNS is off-the-wall. Any > changes they need done, and they will be few, can be given to you as a > support ticket for action just like everyone else gets to do. > I would also have them specify exactly in their proposal what they > intend to do, with full engineering. Any sane service provider will do > that in their tender, and yours looks like a rather big tender. Why cannot they just ask you guys to make the DNS changes they need, transient or permanent. That way you stay in the loop on what they are doing and participate with the upgrade. 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? Also, your company should force this contractor to take a large liability policy, in the name of your company, should things go really fubar.... caveat emptor! hth, James