Hello fellow Sonarians,
I'm quite new to the Forum. Hope I haven't overseen any similar questions already answered/discussed.
 
In the new rolling-updates model, is it possible to download bugfixes only?!
 
To illustrate what I mean:
Previously I would have bought Sonar X3 as is with all the included content and features. Then as bugs would become apparent "updates" were released.
For example.
- Sonar X3 was released end of September
- X3b update beginning Oct. 2013
- X1e update mid March 2014
During these six months all of the updates have been bug-fixes or product enhancements (keybindings / workflow) and not new product-features (eg. Vocalsync/Drum-replacer) or additional content (eg. expansion packs/ FX chains).
So in the end I am left with a product as is (content & featurewise)and with most bugs fixed. The product is sort of "finished"
 
Now in the current rolling-update model whatever my last update is, it not only  included bug-fixes to the previous version(s) (which we obviously need, and I feel are entitled to)  but also included new product-features and thus most certainly new bugs to those features..... I.e. I will always be "stuck" with a version that is "unfinished" and with unfixed bugs.
Now I know that a product might never be 100% bugfree, and that bugfixes to a certain feature might not be fixed by the next update-release (it might take 4 or 5 releases) but I would like to see a possibility to reject new product-features, and choose to install bugfixes only....
 
What do you guys think about this?
Maybe someone from Cakewalk could give us their opinion on this.
 
Cheers, Mat

The flaw in your reasoning is that you assume that bug fixes cannot cause other problems and that only new features cause bugs :)
In fact most of the time new features are less likely to cause regressions in other features since they are built on top of existing functionality. The exception of course is when a new feature touches a bunch of other stuff.
 
That said we may consider offering a model in the future where we do not offer new features at all but just bug fixes. Its actually a great deal more work for us to maintain but it seems that enough people still prefer the older software model.

M@
Hello fellow Sonarians,
I'm quite new to the Forum. Hope I haven't overseen any similar questions already answered/discussed.
 
In the new rolling-updates model, is it possible to download bugfixes only?!
 
To illustrate what I mean:
Previously I would have bought Sonar X3 as is with all the included content and features. Then as bugs would become apparent "updates" were released.
For example.
- Sonar X3 was released end of September
- X3b update beginning Oct. 2013
- X1e update mid March 2014
During these six months all of the updates have been bug-fixes or product enhancements (keybindings / workflow) and not new product-features (eg. Vocalsync/Drum-replacer) or additional content (eg. expansion packs/ FX chains).
So in the end I am left with a product as is (content & featurewise)and with most bugs fixed. The product is sort of "finished"
 
Now in the current rolling-update model whatever my last update is, it not only  included bug-fixes to the previous version(s) (which we obviously need, and I feel are entitled to)  but also included new product-features and thus most certainly new bugs to those features..... I.e. I will always be "stuck" with a version that is "unfinished" and with unfixed bugs.
Now I know that a product might never be 100% bugfree, and that bugfixes to a certain feature might not be fixed by the next update-release (it might take 4 or 5 releases) but I would like to see a possibility to reject new product-features, and choose to install bugfixes only....
 
What do you guys think about this?
Maybe someone from Cakewalk could give us their opinion on this.
 
Cheers, Mat

Welcome to the forum. I think you need to try the new model and see for yourself if an update adds new bugs or not.
 
I have been around a very long time and have updated Sonar starting with the very first one Sonar XL. Clearly in all those updates there have been bugs. The interesting thing about that is most of them didn't impact me in any way. A very few seem to impact me alone. While others were major for others and not much of an issue for me. 
 
You need to rethink how you are approaching this and see what works for you not what may be reported by others.  

Hi Noel, John,
thanks for the fast replies.
 
I'm glad there is a flaw in my reasoning
 
I'm on Platinum right now (paid up-front) and really like the rolling updates model!
For me as a non professional user it's really nice to receive new features througout the year. Sort of like birthday each month .
Also I havent experienced many bugs myself (since 8.3), so no worries so far!
(-except one strange thing having the new platinum freeze or pause for split second after playing a loop for a long time, both on playback as well as recording: "only" change to the system is win10 vs win 8.1 -> but that's for another thread)
 
As it is in my nature to be a "tweaker and optimizer" I was wondering, when I get near the end of my 12months worth of updates, how I might "end-up" with a version that has as many new features as possible/needed with least known bugs possible......even if I am not even experiencing any of those bugs.
Might not be a very practical issue but hey.......
 
In any case, it'll take another 9 months and untill then I'm looking forward to all the new feature releases. Hopefully the bugs stay at home. Question answered.
regards, Mat
 

Cakewalk of course is right here. But if there was a regression bugs release inbetween releases that would a good idea. In fact Cakewalk does do emergency releases when major bugs are apparent. If they just did a stability release regularly every month it would make life a lot easier for people who want stable updates.

Also would love to see twice a year exclusive bugfix only releases with minimal new features. Then I probably would only end up upgrading twice a year.

...And during all those bug fix updates to x3 nobody was getting payed for all their hard work on them.
One can only hope that they are now.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
 
That said we may consider offering a model in the future where we do not offer new features at all but just bug fixes. Its actually a great deal more work for us to maintain but it seems that enough people still prefer the older software model.

 
IMHO the world does not need 2 Sonar Platinum versions (w/ and w/out new features); it would be a waste of resources and only adds confusion.

Although I was skeptical about the new way of doing updates first (who wasn't???) I'm very convinced now. In fact it's really simple:
 
If you like your current version and don't have any showstoppers, stick with it and just read the eZines to learn about the new stuff. Keep your version until there is something in the updates for you that will improve your workflow. Updates are cumulative, you don't lose anything if you skip a few (I just went from Foxboro to Ipswich because in between versions did not contain any fixes/improvements that were critical to me).
 
If you are upgrading blindly on the first day of every release, you may risk getting into some trouble occasionally (like with any kind of blind updating these days) ... however, it's easy to rollback to the version before so no real risk there ...
 
 
 

So we thought as well, but the concept of constantly evolving software is still alien to some users and they refuse to accept otherwise. As you state, we have explained in all the FAQ's about the flexibility to update at any point but sometimes people don't like making choices :) Perhaps those of you who get it can try and convince others about the value!
 
In my mind there is no question that the new model is far superior in all ways and actually produces far more stable software out of the gate. You pay the same amount of money and get more value than before. Its a smaller and more focused set of changes that have been more carefully tested and vetted by QA and beta testers. Its much easier to focus on one or two features rather than 20 complex ones.
 
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
So we thought as well, but the concept of constantly evolving software is still alien to some users and they refuse to accept otherwise. As you state, we have explained in all the FAQ's about the flexibility to update at any point but sometimes people don't like making choices :) Perhaps those of you who get it can try and convince others about the value!

I'm still on Gloucester. I don't mind being on Gloucester for the moment either, and I totally agree with you. I don't see any value in having a separate bug fixes path (i.e. different code base), that would be a waste of time. I'm also all for the monthly release cycle (although I wonder if things would have been better if it was every 2 months, but whatever).
 
I also don't mind waiting for regression fixes either. The main issue seems to be when regression issues get fixed, along comes a new release to break something else. Life would be so much better if there were regular dedicated regression fix releases happening (which also fixes legacy issues as well), so we knew when to expect them. I again stress NOT on a separate codebase but part of the standard release cycle. Then we would have some real choice.

Cheers..

One of the advantages the old model had was the ability to install versions side x side.  Rather than bugfix only updates alternating with feature updates (or a variation), *I* think having the ability to install the new along side the previous would be better.
 
This way my beloved Hopkinton version could remain unchanged when I install Ipswitch.  I can kick the tires on Ipswitch while having Hopkinton still available-without rollback/forward and such.  I could continue working my in-progress projects with Hopkinton while trying out Ipswitch with project copies.
 
If there is something about Ipswitch I can't live with, I can continue to use Hopkinton until an update gets Ipswitch settled out.  Or maybe I leave the Ipswitch side until Jovial is released.  I update Ipswitch to Jovial while continuing to rely on Hopkinton for bread/butter.  Once I have confidence in Jovial, I can start using it.  The next update goes to the Hopkinton "side".
 
IMO the rollback process is very slick, but in practice updating with rollback as a fallback still "feels" like I'm messing with my production environment more than I would prefer.
 
Adding "side x side" version capability to the current model would be the best of both worlds IMO.