I get what you are saying, if a new user had have come along and tried to install with 0.103.1 they would’ve had a not good time, it was not yet proven to be stable through large scale beta testing. If such a latest stable release existed I would have it flip over from 0.102.X to 0.103.X halfway through the next release cycle, having let it bed in for a week before suggesting it for newcomers.
1 Like
@BrendanMoran Exactly…and for a week or so it was in large type on the front page as our latest and greatest offering…does nobody else even look at that page very often?
How many new users installed that version and fled?
Do we keep stats of that?
What needs to be explicitly explained to new users?
The developers owe nothing to the users, this is open source software. Developers and contributors do all this in their free time and don’t get paid anything (The core team lives from donations made through users applying for the Nabu Casa cloud and paying a monthly fee).
Again the developers owe nothing to the users. Anyone can contribute and update the documentation in case they feel it is not accurate enough. You can sacrifice your free time, make a PR and change the documentation, other people may do this but you can’t expect it from them. I’m no programmer myself and agree that in the past the release notes were sometimes too short, or breaking changes were sometimes deeply hidden inside a PR on Github, but recently the release notes have improved a lot and in my opinion all the needed information is there, all the breaking changes for all integrations are explained. What are you missing in the release notes?
1 Like
Let me start this (expectedly controversial) post by saying I generally agree with all of the replies to the OP. There is no “stable” version of HA. they are all just as stable or unstable as all the others (aside from some hiccup as in the 103.1 failure that was quickly reversed and also extremely rare).
The only thing I don’t really agree with is this:
I don’t think that is entirely true.
The dev of any project does have at least some fiduciary responsibility to the users to, at minimum, try to ensure, to the best of their ability, that they aren’t knowingly putting out dangerous/damaging products. And a decent dev will also try to at least minimally support their creation when issues are pointed out or questions about functionality are asked. If you don’t want to do that then don’t be a dev for a publicly released product.
The other thing is that the core team are “volunteers” working “in their spare time” from “donations” isn’t true. They are employees of a company (Nabu Casa) which receives it’s income from users who pay a monthly fee for service. To say that they are volunteers working in their spare time from donations is like saying that I “volunteer” “my spare time” to go work at the steel mill that I get paid for out of the “donations” that customers are paying for the steel that the company produces. Sounds kind of silly to be put in those terms to me.
And that said there should be some responsiveness from the core team to at least the users who are paying Nabu Casa for the service and that should include support for HA since that is the basis for the services in the first place. There are lot’s of companies who offer a free tier of service that includes no support but once you are a paying customer there needs to be some minimum support offered.
But that’s just my (I’m sure unpopular) opinion.
4 Likes
Best Performer according to who’s/what measure?
That was just used as an example of what could be adopted…my bad.
PS: I tried several versions of 0.99 and they all seemed pretty bad.
see it’s a completely subjective assessment - one mans poison is another mans food…
I think it might be good to explore some sort of auto config conversion for known breaking changes as a part of the upgrade.
Just to @wellsy i think as he does not seems to grant great value to all awesome new ui features(events based automation, entities management…) or new integrations, bug fixes that pushed HA to that high new level since 0.100.
@wellsy, please notice that 0.100 and higher releases are mainly « non skilled » users oriented and make HA more robust for a widest and simplest use.
Stability is only about your own ecosystem because it each user HA is unique and no one can share the real same feeling you have.
Long Term Support can be applied to OS or monolitics software but i can’t see how it could exists in a such modular solution.
Anyway you are always free to use Hassio check HA configuration module against your config to ensure weather or not a new release would lead you in trouble.
The support is only for the services Nabu casa provides and that isn’t core HA support
Plus I don’t think burningstone said the core developers were volunteers but said they live of donations to Nabu casa. The rest of the Devs who contribute do do it in their spare time for free, so I think it’s a bit crass to undermine their valuable contribution saying if they are not willing to support everyone they shouldn’t do it
in regards to original question this is the same argument that comes up at least once a month about stability and breaking changes. Most times if you look at that person’s history they have been happily using HA then onetime the upgrade bites them then posts like these appear saying they are fed up with changes. If you have been using HA for more than a couple of months then you should already know about the changes every three weeks. Sometimes it about being responsible yourself and not trying to point the blame at others.
So there is my probably unpopular post.
2 Likes
@olijouve you are indeed right. I do “not seems to grant great value to all awesome new ui features”
I am much more interested in continuing to be able to control and monitor a system that it is most important it continues to just work reliably.
I am definitely not wanting to live on the bleeding edge of new and exciting developments although over time I would like to have those things but not at the cost of obliterating what I presently have running.
In fact If I had been alerted to the fact that as I started the 0.100.(whatever it was) container that killed stone dead my ability to control and monitor my system after leaving an incredibly good solid system @ 0.92.2 I would now still be using 0.92.2 with absolutely no real need to move forward at this point in time.
I am reasonably certain that I may not be alone in that type of thinking?
So what was it that killed your stone dead ability to control and monitor your system. I can’t remember if you ever said what flavour of ha you run and how installed so if you could enlighten me.
If 92 was working for you why not restore to that version
UI failed to load and I could not return to 0.92.2 because the UI failed to load.
I run on QNAP NAS using container station.
System Health
| arch | x86_64 |
|---|---|
| dev | false |
| docker | true |
| hassio | false |
| os_name | Linux |
| python_version | 3.7.5 |
| timezone | Australia/Brisbane |
| version | 0.103.3 |
| virtualenv | false |
Lovelace
| mode | yaml |
|---|---|
| resources | 4 |
| views | 17 |
PS: I have revisited 0.92.2 several times to try to get that to load…failed every time I retried it.
How is your install installed?
Did you create a github github issue for it, was there anyone else who had similar issue after said upgrade.
So your running docker, then that’s easy as to go back to and run a specific version. I would presume the Synology has some for of container mgmnt to do so. Also remember that running on Synology may not be tested by people running the betas each release cycle so issues from that may not be picked up in release
I didn’t meant to start a new troll,nor beeing offensive. my english is not perfect so can sometime use bad wording.
You have your own motivations and i can respect that. Your installation, your way to make it live the way you want.
You might have missed my last sentence where I’ve oriented you to the module that will help you to regain control on compatibility check, before to and without really install a new release.
1 Like
I didn’t create an issue as I have been down that track in the past and not had much useful feedback. So I just set about getting things working the best I could. Things started to work again @ around 0.101.(something) but massive CPU and Memory usage was experience right through to 0.103.3 hit the street.
I see in the installation methods that running HA in a certain way could have unknown issues with integrations and dependencies and Synology is one of them. So it could have been a case of a missing dependencies or something
It’s “under normal circumstances” incredibly easy to move to whatever version you want…I have done just that quite often in the past…I’ll do it again as well but with greater protection in place in future.
Today is the 23/12/19 and after I just a while ago heard (on another thread) that 0.103.4 has landed and considering this present discussion.
Is it truly wise to have posted this to the front page? Has anyone even posted any feedback yet to know if it is a good or a bad release?
Current Version: 0.103.4
Released: December 22, 2019