Poll: Your Opinion - What's The Current Hold Up For V6.2 Release?

bungee91

By bungee91
in Lounge


Recommended Posts

danioj Community Regular

danioj

Posted
Posted

I selected "The Inclusion of Dual Parity Has Turned Out To Be a Bigger Hassle Than Expected".

 

I feel that the inclusion of such a data impacting feature that LT will want to ensure that it is as ready for Public Consumption as it can be. I am sure they will release some form of BETA with a disclaimer for some time (in that I don't think it will go straight to RC) but we all know how many people run BETA software (which is very risky especially as you are trusting it to protect your important data) and even more worryingly WITHOUT a Backup. I think that has to be a testament to how much trust the Community has in the unRAID product and I am sure LT will not want to even get closed to blemishing that reputation.

 

Beta Software

A pre-release of software that is given out to a large group of users to try under real conditions. Beta versions have gone through alpha testing inhouse and are generally fairly close in look, feel and function to the final product; however, design changes often occur as a result.

 

I do feel that people sometime forget that we EXPECT to find issues / bugs and even sometimes major faults with BETA software. Identifying those is one of the points of releasing a BETA of course. It does of course benefit us all when those brave people (who are not running a test or secondary system) participate in the BETA test as the issues they find only make the product better and allow for issues to be resolved and not creep into a stable release.

 

So, I have no issue with them spending plenty of time to thoroughly internally test the dual parity implementation. Imagine if one of those users I mention above or EVEN one of us who has a full BACKUP has some major issue with it when it comes out .... lets just say .... a good reputation is lost instantly (and with this forum just a few users with data loss - BETA software or not, disclaimer or not, advice to take backup or not - well no one wants that LT least of all) and it takes an AGE to Build / Recover!

 

All that being said, I do not like nor do I believe it is in the best interests of LT to continue this trend of zero communication at times (which we appear to be in now). I know we make a joke of the "Soon™" BUT that is just deflecting from what is really a poor poor practice. I personally feel the community doesnt deserve it.

 

P.S. I mention the words issue / bug / fault a bit in the above post. I do wish LT would deploy some sort of Issue / Bug Tracking System. Won't hold my breath though.

 

On a positive note. Can't wait for 6.2. Test Server all set up with things ready to test rebuilding disks etc. It's going to be fun!  8)

 

P.P.S. I feel the need to say it could very easily be scope creep etc. I am a PRINCE2 Practitioner and am PMP and AIPM Ceritified - trust me - with all the Project Management Diploma's, Certification and Accreditation in the world - managing scope creep can be hard!  :(

Link to comment
garycase Grand Master

garycase

Posted
Posted

Regardless of the reason, I agree this is something that we absolutely want VERY WELL tested before its released.  Recent releases have had too many "minor nits" that needed to be corrected in another "point" release => but there's absolutely ZERO room for any "nits" in dual parity ... so it's worth waiting for this to be very thoroughly scrubbed before the release.    And there are many other features that also need thorough testing -- not sure what they all are, but there's been plenty of indication that there are a LOT of changes coming.    Clearly we want them ALL to be thoroughly tested before the release.

 

Agree it'll be worth the wait  :)

Link to comment
ashman70 Proficient

ashman70

Posted
Posted

The communication 'issue' is a double edged sword though, if they communicate too much then everybody gets amped for the release and hyper and impatient, if they communicate less the same thing happens so they can't win IMO. I would prefer they concentrate on finishing, vetting and testing the release rather than shifting their focus to communicating to us things we will eventually find out anyway. Everyone has different expectations and Lime-Tech can't be expected to cater to them all. I hear what your saying though, a little more communication would be nice, but I am content to wait, communication or no communication.

Link to comment
bungee91 Enthusiast

bungee91

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Agree with everything stated, get it right prior to release, and stop having to release .1 increments for things that should have been spotted prior to making it out the door.

Keep in mind that some of those issues were also fixed without a formal .1 release, but an update to Dynamix, or patch to fix issues that weren't caught prior to it being included.

 

I still think it is possible that single parity usage, free for current users.

Dual parity usage, nominal charge to add this functionality.. However I have nothing to support that.

 

As for the double edged sword, it is always better to be quiet, than to say things that don't come true.

Normally when Jon goes silent, that would mean we're pretty darn close to "buttoning it up". However it is possible the the addition of scheduling personalized support, amongst other things may be overstretching what 3 guys can do, and this takes away from finishing up a release. At that point once your close to it, you see that new shiny update to QEMU/KVM/Kernel/Samba/NFS/Dynamix/...., so do you include it, or call it final, or........  :o

 

It's their business, and they do it how they want.. I'm just anxious, and again tired of things that have been fixed in an unreleased version that regularly plague new users/questions in support.

Not trying to start a Grumpybutfun style debate (which was fun to read at times, but also not exactly productive).  ;)

Link to comment
CHBMB Veteran

CHBMB

Posted
Posted

I personally don't think it's any of those options...

 

My belief is:

 

  • We've all got excited by a beta we haven't had access to but have had glimpses off.  All we can infer from that beta is that the KVM stuff had been ugraded / revamped, not the state of dual parity or docker or anything else
  • It's always like this with Unraid version releases.  LT tend to be "optimistic" with their release schedules.

Link to comment
BRiT Mentor

BRiT

Posted
Posted

I personally don't think it's any of those options...

 

My belief is:

 

  • We've all got excited by a beta we haven't had access to but have had glimpses off.  All we can infer from that beta is that the KVM stuff had been ugraded / revamped, not the state of dual parity or docker or anything else
  • It's always like this with Unraid version releases.  LT tend to be "optimistic" with their release schedules.

 

I think you also need to place quotes around schedule(s); "schedules".

Link to comment
hernandito Community Regular

hernandito

Posted
Posted

Added option 6, the dreaded "paid upgrade" option..  ;)

Agree with the points given, the change to dual parity (optional) needs to be tested very well prior to release.

 

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.... say it ain't so :-[ :-[ :-[

 

I would pay it... But I bet that is the reason for the delay; how to upgrade the keys and keep track of the version... They will have to reprocess all of everyone's keys and provide new ones.... Please do not flame me.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing