AECOsim: policy of program updates

FWIW, we recently had an internal discussion about the version numbers shown as well - I'm honestly not sure what the post-.829 builds are myself.

Edit: It turns out that most of the "other" version numbers are for datasets, EAP/Release Candidates, or non-English versions; e.g., the two post-.829 numbers were Ss6 EAP datasets.

Some of these build numbers reference dataset versions provided as standalone installer. In the case of .839 & .869, these were the beta and the release candidate datasets, however we have rolled back and recycled version number to avoid exhausting the 800 series version. These dataset, should realistically not show up in this particular dialog and we will investigate how we can address this.

Regarding our policy of software updates, that is currently changing and in CONNECT addition, where we will be provide incremental releases through update service.  Bentley’s Update Service is based on Windows Server Update Services best practices, including the use of web services for notifications and deployment. There will be more information to come as this is developed.

Regarding our previous release strategy, we targeted annual releases with the option for an intermediate maintenance release. Unfortunately, this did not happen for ABD Ss5. We do have a ABD Ss6, Update 1 planned to release in Q1 2016, which will provide  a V8i connection to some of the new CONNECT service, plus a handful of Ss6 maintenance fixes. We will strive to  increase our frequency of maintenance releases and public availability, but the largest challenges for us as well as the user adoption remains the introduction of new schema elements, dataset update and localization changes applied in a maintenance release. We will try to keep those level of changes to a minimum for a maintenance update.

We do periodically provide priority builds that resolve specific issue.  The recipients of those builds are determined based on what  issue were resolved in that priority build and which users have registered an issue with our Technical Support Group (TSG) that could be addressed with the priority build.  Our priority builds are not publically available but are distributed through our Technical Support Group (TSG) and are available to anyone, provided they are SELECT users and it resolves an issue reported by the user.

 I have attached our release history in a similar chart as present in the communities.bentley.com/.../100927, but far more accurate. (note: this does not include the correct version number & release dates of the 9 localized version)

Hello
Thanks for the clear and frank reply/explantion
'in CONNECT addition, where we will be provide incremental releases through update service'
Yes! Finally. This has historically been a weak point for Bentley Systems

'We will strive to increase our frequency of maintenance releases and public availability'
Bascially, ..... yes again
This needs to happen. At this stage of the game, this is far more important that ANY new feature/tool.
We need to get what's already there working properly, smoothly, reliably, before we move on to the 'next new greatest thing'

'We do periodically provide priority builds that resolve specific issue. The recipients of those builds are determined based on what issue were resolved in that priority build and which users have registered an issue with our Technical Support Group (TSG) that could be addressed with the priority build. Our priority builds are not publically available but are distributed through our Technical Support Group (TSG) and are available to anyone, provided they are SELECT users and it resolves an issue reported by the user.'
Long term bone of contention
'provided .... it resolves and issue reported by the user'
The problem with this is that most users NEVER report the problems they are having. So Bentley seem to be under the impression that they are not having any problems. They are!
Not once, have I ever been informed of any of these 'priority builds'.
Come on Bentley Systems, ...... you are clearly not aware of how much damage/distrust this 'ill-informed' policy has caused
Seems pretty clear, as part of our Select Service fees, this should surely include being infomed when Bentley Systems become aware of some issue/glitch/problem

Danny,

As Jeff mentioned, this has always been essentially a "pull" process vs. "push".   So you are correct in that you wouldn't have heard about these builds unless you had explicitly reported an issue(s) to support and we were aware of an available fix.   I don't expect that to change in an Ss6 timeframe, but for CONNECT...

Danny,

As Jeff mentioned, this has always been essentially a "pull" process vs. "push".   So you are correct in that you wouldn't have heard about these builds unless you had explicitly reported an issue(s) to support and we were aware of an available fix.   I don't expect that to change in an Ss6 timeframe, but for CONNECT...

Steve
Must admit, view previous form, I'm not expecting it to change in the SS6 timeframe either!
Still, ...... rather 'galling' that in 15 years or so of professional use, I (and the companies I have worked for, .... about 20 of them) have never received a bug report/list of know issues. Even if Bentley Systems has not yet worked out a fix, if there is an known problem, the very least Bentley could do is inform their customers of this , ........ so they don't waste yet more time trying to get it to work!

Not quite correct.

I remember in my early Microstation years we did receive information about every bug that had been fixed.

This changed when they moved over to the SAP system.

Personally I think the whole customer relation and/or bug tracking system is one of the worst I have had the pleasure to be in contact with. Compared to e.g. the Ubuntu bug tracking system it is lightyears behind.

Andreas
'I remember in my early Microstation years we did receive information about every bug that had been fixed.'
Shows that it can be done
Why they stopped doing that is a mystery
It would be very useful and helpful, ..... I can not underline enough the time wasted fiddling about trying to get things to work, only to then conclude that it's a bug
That is time that could/should have been used getting to grips with new features and improving the workflow, .... thus actually getting some benefit from all these 'advanced tools'

Not the only thing that gives the impression of a co that's just hanging on by its fingernails, inadequate resources to tackle things, swamped - poss the result of customer growth by excessive acquistion into new areas rather than by nurturing what's already here.