I have been in the web development industry for around 5 years now, always working in an open source environment. Mostly apache, mysql, and php with a little bit of ruby, using git for version control. But recently took up a job where development is entirely C# ASP.NET MVC.
While I was able to pick up the language etc fairly easily, the other members of my team (with a lot more MS Development experience than me) all have a different way of thinking when it comes to publishing and deployment of the final site, and particularly future changes.
The mentality with the other developers is that once a site has been published it is final. No more changes can be made to the site, when I have asked the reasons behind this, the answers have been it is too dangerous, time consuming or difficult.
From my past experience, updating a site is simply a case of uploading the changed files, which is usually quite quick if it was a little change, or putting the site in maintenance mode while the update occurs.
We recently published an MVC Site, and the business contacted us to update some of the text and add a link to a new pdf document. The rest of my team were quick to say that this should not be done because the site is now live and should not be modified. Is there something I have missed by not being 'brought up' a Microsoft developer?
What are the argument against making modifications to a live web application in production and is this mindset unique to .NET developers?
I genuinely would like to understand this mindset and whether it is justified in a Microsoft development environment, or if this is just an older way of thinking.
NOTE: We use TFS for version control and use publish profiles to determine where the site gets deployed (UAT or Production)