Please push open beta updates only once a month

[nickos86]

Hi,

 

In the last few times where you pushed open beta updates after a month long pause - the update was much more stable, bug free and feature rich.

Although we all want it here and now (or even better - yesterday), there's much benefit to longer development cycles.

 

I guess that every ENG group work with a bit of a different build and then it's being integrated for public releases. In the 2 week cycles - you compile everything a few days before (at best). Leaving you almost no time to develop anything new but rather deal with last's build integration issues. More importantly - leaving you almost no time to test the release build.

 

If a release build is ready a week prior to the release - it makes it possible to test it a bit and make sure all the wanted features are in and nothing broke.

 

I'll even suggest a more controversial proposition - push a beta every two or three month. The SC vs F16 releases perfectly demonstrate that the costumers prefer a delay and a good product rather than "on time" release with multiple bugs.

 

I understand Nicks approach to EA and that we as a community are vital for QA and development. It make sense. In this case a monthly update is the best option.

 

Thanks.

[Yoshua]

Go to start, Eagle dynamics or whatever it is then DCS world update.

 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[danvac]

@nickos86, that's release/stable version, it is updated when build is "stable" and "bug free". Before 2.5.6 "mess" it was actually updated once per month, but online community still choosed to use open beta...

[Buzzles]

Hi,

 

In the last few times where you pushed open beta updates after a month long pause - the update was much more stable, bug free and feature rich.

Although we all want it here and now (or even better - yesterday), there's much benefit to longer development cycles.

 

I guess that every ENG group work with a bit of a different build and then it's being integrated for public releases. In the 2 week cycles - you compile everything a few days before (at best). Leaving you almost no time to develop anything new but rather deal with last's build integration issues. More importantly - leaving you almost no time to test the release build.

 

If a release build is ready a week prior to the release - it makes it possible to test it a bit and make sure all the wanted features are in and nothing broke.

 

I'll even suggest a more controversial proposition - push a beta every two or three month. The SC vs F16 releases perfectly demonstrate that the costumers prefer a delay and a good product rather than "on time" release with multiple bugs.

 

I understand Nicks approach to EA and that we as a community are vital for QA and development. It make sense. In this case a monthly update is the best option.

 

Thanks.

 

I think you're making some big assumptions about how ED manage their builds internally.

 

Read around enough and you'll find they've got at least one main dev branch and an internal test branch, along with the OB and Stable ones.

The OB candidates come from the internal test branch.

 

They're definitely not doing CD into the OB branch as you're assuming they do.

 

Also, as an aside:

Dev cycle != release cycle.

Just because a set amount of time has passed, doesn't mean code gets merged from feature branches into main.

 

 

If you want a more bug free experience, stop using OB and go back to the Stable branch.