Bugs? Like Windows, Firefox, Adobe, Autodesk products? etc…
In production even os updates are fully controlled to avoid broken system in the middle of the production.
- An update can contain bugs, yes. But the update process is usually not
responsible for creating the (bugs). Bugs are introduced with the addition of features in code, or through (ironically) other bug-fixes.
I already described how the risk can be minimized for a big production company: One person updates. That person tests relevant functions. If she/he does not discover issues, the rest of the company updates.
This is exactly the same thing that should happen with daily build updates and for pretty much the same reasons.
So nothing changes there, but the update per user is faster with an updater. In case an issue is discovered after the company wide update, the update method is inferior, because you would have to install a previous version. But this risk is minimized and the fix is apparent. So on average this would be a rare occurance and a quick fix. As a result the updater process is faster on average.
Do a professional players update the game during tournaments? I don't think so.
Actually, with League of Legends that could theoretically happen between matches. Ranked games - witch could qualify you for professional play - also always require the latest build. Occassionally bugs are introduced or discovered after an update. In that case a hot-fix and a warning is distributed.
In production, the question is one of time-frame and necessety. If your product has to be finished in a week or so, hardly anybody would update unless it fixes a huge bug that affects the production. If your production takes months or even more than a year, there will likely be occasions where it makes sense to update everyone's build to fix various issues that were discovered over time or to make work a bit easier with new features.
If you don't have those 3 minutes, script that. There are plenty of automation tools that could help you do an automatic update system based on daily build's rss feed and your specific paths.
I did not know that. But as far as I understand those solutions can only automate the download and install process. They do not work incrementally as an updater would, right? And that misses the advantages of the process I suggest.
Log on and click download - 25 seconds.
Double click installer and install - ~2 min.
Update shortcut to Houdini - 15 sec
Total time ~3 min.
I actually went through the process just now. - For science!
Download took about 13 minutes.
Install process took about 5 minutes (on an SSD).
That's actually far less than I thought. And honestly it kinda diffuses the speed gain argument. Still, an updater would probably need about a minute to download and install (a few megabytes).
The interesting part is that the updater would become a better solution the bigger Houdini gets.
- Well, at this point I am playing “devil's advocate” to explore this idea, but I think I am still doing quite well.