I very much like the frequent updates.
 
What I don't like, though, is scheduled frequent updates. That puts pressure on the developers to get an update out within a predetermined timeframe that does not take into account the realities or difficulties with whatever changes are being made.
 
Some fixes are quick, easy and easily testable. Others require sitting around a conference table for days, discussing basic architectural changes that have the potential to cause unexpected problems. My advice would be to get those quick fixes out quickly, but if there aren't any of those in a particular month, then take as long as needed.

bitflipper
I very much like the frequent updates.
 
What I don't like, though, is scheduled frequent updates. That puts pressure on the developers to get an update out within a predetermined timeframe that does not take into account the realities or difficulties with whatever changes are being made.
 
Some fixes are quick, easy and easily testable. Others require sitting around a conference table for days, discussing basic architectural changes that have the potential to cause unexpected problems. My advice would be to get those quick fixes out quickly, but if there aren't any of those in a particular month, then take as long as needed.

That's basically what's happening. Among other things, it's why you haven't seen ripple editing yet. The schedules for updates are targets, and can change at the last minute...2017.02 is a good example of this.

bitflipper
I very much like the frequent updates.
 
What I don't like, though, is scheduled frequent updates. That puts pressure on the developers to get an update out within a predetermined timeframe that does not take into account the realities or difficulties with whatever changes are being made.

 
Ya I do feel like they should give themselves permission to skip a month or two when appropriate. I'd rather they don't spend time bringing an intermediate build to release quality and instead spend the time working on the next actual milestone they are hoping to hit.
 
I'm fine with how things have been going, Sonar has progressed nicely and releases seem to be very stable overall. I just think they shouldn't impose a self directed schedule of one a month. They aren't having problems with it or anything, I just don't think it is necessary and it may slow down hitting milestones a bit since intermediate builds have to be regularly prepped.

Sycraft
Ya I do feel like they should give themselves permission to skip a month or two when appropriate. 

If you look back over the update history, the ones where there are only bug fixes and no new features are essentially skipping a month. But if you have bug fixes in hand, there's no reason not to release them..so they get released anyway 

Thanks for the input everyone - lots of great points and it seems everyone is thrilled with  the monthly updates. l wonder if people outside of our community would perceive that upon visiting this forum after each months update though:)
 
Ampfixer and bitflipper (EDIT and Sycraft) have best pinned it down the for me. Obviously this decision lies entirely with Cakewalk. If they're happy I guess all is well! To be clear I am not expressing any personal disatisfaction. Loving Sonar:)  Just wondering aloud how people outside of our comminity perceive this process and whether the bakers feel pressured by the timed releases.
 
 

I really like the monthly updates, but I also don't mind if the bakers choose to delay the odd update by a month or two from time to time.  To me there is always the safety net of (1) Rolling back, (2) Waiting too see how an update is received on the forums, or (3) Only updating when I see a feature or fix the affects me personally.
 
Since the monthly updates started, I have actually taken all 3 approaches depending on how busy I've been.  At times, if my system has been stable and I've had a lot of projects on the go, I've gone months without an update.
 
Nobody holds a gun to my head forcing me to update.

I'm ok with the monthly updates, but sometimes when I find an update that seems to be extra stable and bug free for my purposes I stay with it longer to test it and make sure it's as good as I think it is. Then when I do update and find the new update has a bug that bothers me, I can just revert my C drive back to an image file with the stable update.
 
So if you don't' care for the monthly updates, just skip ones when you feel like it. There's no obligation and isn't it true if we skip one we don't lose an features or anything if we update everything when we're ready? Am I correct?
 
I hope so, because I have skipped some. I had problems with Oct, Nov, and Dec updates and went from 9.2016 to 01.2017, which I’m still staying with for a while. Enjoying a pretty stable update after a long spell of not so good ones for my system.
 
The monthly updates do give us lots of flexibility to update or not to update and when we really are needing some bug fix, hopefully it won’t be a long wait.

gmp
So if you don't' care for the monthly updates, just skip ones when you feel like it. There's no obligation and isn't it true if we skip one we don't lose an features or anything if we update everything when we're ready? Am I correct?

Correct. The updates are cumulative so even though you skipped a few, by updating to 01.2107 you've got them anyway.
 
My only personal gripe, well it's not really a gripe, more an observation, is that I feel as though I'm slipping behind learning the new features due to a distinct lack of time in the studio.
Case in point. I had a clear day last Friday to do some work and started by attempting to update to 02.2017.
I had a bit of a problem with my internet which cost me a couple of hours trying to work out what the hell was going on and ended up doing very little. 
(Whatever the problem was resolved itself after re-booting my modem, but it certainly put a damper on my enthusiasm).
 

Hi,
 
To be honest I believe that current model is great both for people who likes monthly updates and also 'surprisingly' for those about less rare updates.
 
Why? Because it is our choice. :) As BRuys wrote 'no guns' :)
 
If you don't want more frequent updates just you can follow 'what's new and what's fixed' notice and then decide if you are really interested in it or you prefer to wait. Anyway there is also rollback implemented so in case of troubles you can go to previous version. I used rollback few times and must say it worked and helped to fix what newer version made worse in my projects. Or even you could decide arbitrary just to update twice per year. It is up to you in fact not to Cakewalk ;)

As Craig mentioned in every model there will be bugs and fixes needed. And developers always will be very busy. It is not possible to make complicated program which is also connected to plenty of others (like plugins which are kind of external functions) to have bug-free. Not possible for human.
 
 
 

gmp
 I had problems with Oct, Nov, and Dec updates and went from 9.2016 to 01.2017, which I’m still staying with for a while. Enjoying a pretty stable update after a long spell of not so good ones for my system.

 
Exactly the path that I took too Gerry. Very happy with 2017-01.