I have seen this too many times since being a Roon user.
EA builds get released too early, bugs are present and straight after an update a new EA is released with fixes for the latest builds release.
Please, please do thorough testing in house and release builds that are 99.9% perfect, even if this means 2 updates a year. Darn it, 1 update a year would make me happy as long as each update was near bug free.
Mainly Arc being focussed on in this BTW. Build 1496 is giving me more issues than before. I’ve got 2 support posts on the go.
As a paying customer I do not wish to be a beta tester
I may be misunderstanding, but b1496 is a production release, is this your beef with the release process? That Early Access builds becomes production releases too soon?
I think the Production release has all the fixes that were retrospectively included in the latest EA build? People were complaining that once features are released to production they were saddled with earlier EA builds with bugs that were fixed in the Production release.
I thought the whole idea was to let an experienced group of users loose on a.build to put it through its paces before going to production.
EA is voluntary, you chose to use it. Simple answer if you want bug free wait for production or so you use EA to help the debugging process ?
Or are you saying production is buggy and EA should have lasted longer ? Or are you suggesting that bugs found in EA made it through to production unfixed.
Yes, EA is expected to be buggy but not the production release. Yesterday Arc was problematic but after the update even worse. Playback issues, or lacking playback audio.
I don’t take part in EA. My issues are production build issues.
Production builds shouldn’t have as many issues as I have. Compared to other/similar apps like PlexAmp, EMBY work as intended with little bugs to report.
And if you look at the notes for the new EA, it’s fixing issues with the current production build. This being my point. Get the production to 99.9% bug free and then release.
I disagree. The short time gap between EA and Production means that bugs are not often detected until Production is released. Some of these bugs cause regressions that take months to fix. Over the past couple of years Roon has created more frequent feature updates and this seems to have gone hand in hand with more user problems.
Whether you agree with this or not is one thing, buy claiming that this is a narrow minded pointless topic is a bit, well, narrow minded and pointless.
I see where you’re coming from about the short gap between early access and production potentially causing issues. That said, testing software is really a shared effort. The development team works hard to catch and fix issues, but it’s also up to each user to decide when to update to the next production release.
No matter how short or long the gap between testing and production might be, users always have the option to hold off on updates and see how things play out for others first. It’s a good way to avoid any unexpected problems that might arise.
I’m just giving customer feedback to a service/software provider, for a service that I pay for.
My feedback has neither a right or wrong reasoning just my viewpoint.
I really like Roon and what it does for my music listening, as I am sure many others appreciate it for similar reasons, but as @SukieInTheGraveyard mentions, as I have, the gap between EA bug finding and production builds may not be sufficient to squash bugs like I’ve reported.
If Roon feel their approach to EA > Production is acceptable in their eyes I can make a decision on how I use, update or stop using Roon.
I am aware of not having to update, but some new features such as Listen Later really appeal to me. But once you update (unless you keep old versions), you cannot easily downgrade.
If Roon 1.8 had Listen Later I would revert to 1.8.
But we are where we are with 2.0 and I feel in my time using Roon it’s been a mix of stability. Just my viewpoint point.
As it stands, Roon at home is really working for me. However, Arc isn’t.
I get your point now, sorry i misread it originally
But how long do you wait between EA and Production. I was support manager and a dev for a major SA corporate being chased for Production Initiatives , ie making product not just software. The pressure to go live was immense as real Production was at stake. PLUS it couldn’t fail. If Roon REALY fails i bet you have backup musiic server we didn’t our code was IT
My view would be for Roon to select in private a group of users to run EA releases and feedback in private.
Roon then wouldn’t make it known to public of a new release until it had been thoroughly tested.
Yes, pressures to release. I get this, but weigh up customer dissatisfaction of bugs due to new features being released prior to thorough testing.
Constant buggy software could lead to loss of customers.
I understand regarding updates, or not updating until a new feature is stable.
In my opening post I mentioned the next EA was released after this 1496 release. I was wrong. It was released before the release of 1496.
To me that’s bonkers, releasing a new EA program fixing bugs to known issues but then release 1496 with the new feature with the known bugs. Am I missing something there? Sounds odd.
I can only give an example based on my trade.
‘Turning the water on before connecting two pipes together’ you know what’s going to happen
They already have a closed alpha/beta group of users so closing this off might as well not bother with it at all. EA as far as I remember was to open up final testing to a wider audience to help Roon spot the past last few bugs and hurdles as often user stress it in different ways and the bonus of getting things early to try out before full release. Unfortunately it doesn’t feel like it anymore as some of the bugs that come up are glaring and should have been spotted way before EA.
