Is there any plan to provide updated release notes for IQ Engine versions

[w1f1n00b]

Maybe I’m just missing something but as far as I can find these release notes are static and not kept up to date with known issues

example - https://docs.aerohive.com/330000/docs/help/english/documentation/6.5r12_HiveOS_ReleaseNotes.pdf

I learned today via a GTAC ticket, that there is currently an open CFD for the very issue I submitted a ticket for.

I’ve spent time investigating, troubleshooting, collecting documentation and submitting a ticket only to be told it’s a known issue and will be fixed in the next release. Why not publish known CFD’s for firmware so I don’t have to waste time on known issues?

[nelson]

Ideally, there would be a link to the release notes right on the page offering the update/upgrade. These release notes should be complete, and reverse chronological with newest information at the top. This link should be easy to find, so people can be informed properly BEFORE they undertake clicking any buttons to run updates.

Thank you.

[w1f1n00b]

Adam, My experience has been equally frustration. I've been using XIQ for over three years now, and many of the bugs that have been haunting me since the very beginning (sorting issue, random errors, missing/truncated info, inaccurate info, cloud config groups, objects that can't be deleted etc) took years to resolve or are still ongoing. I still don't use DFS, WIPs or 802.11r as GTAC will often suggesting those be turned off for troubleshooting as well as requiring the latest firmware be applied.  I won't use the latest firmware until there is at least some feedback and confidence from the community that it doesn't cause major issues, which has happened more than once with firmware in the past. Even then I cautiously start with a small handful of APs to test in my environment before doing a more widespread push. I understand that bugs will happen, and documentation is tricky, but I also believe the community here has clearly shown that there is urgent need for improvement on how this info is communicated, and the time frame for resolution of major issues.

[Adam13]

It's good to know there are at least internal discussions happening but I'll still reiterate the fact w1f1n00b raised the problem here 2 years ago. Maybe a section in the release notes with "unverified" CFDs so we can review and help you guys out if we're seeing the same problem.

It appears to me that the team doesn't have a production sized test environment to recreate and monitor bugs, so many of these CFDs will always be unverified.

Since 7525 is the example being used I had noted it in my comment since an engineer had spotted the issue on my 650s/510s, I don't believe I was the originator for that CFD so wouldn't multiple environments justify it as being verified?

I still have multiple issues being looked at, most of which I would expect to be "verified" and nothing is in the latest release notes. On 10.4.3 SDR killed our network, the CFD-7332 that may be related was addressed in 10.4.4. I have been advised to review WIPs prior to putting the new release into testing for Extreme, but there's nothing identified in the release notes for this new problem. I'm fairly sure I shouldn't be getting special treatment and it should be common knowledge in the release notes so why hasn't it been added?

Engineer notes for this SDR example;

I'll add my current cases for reference to others that may see similar issues, I can see a few client tracking problems in the release notes but I have a couple more, including CFD-7604 "hostname not appear on client page" which was created after being verified by the engineer to keep it separate from another issue in the original ticket.


CFD-7619 has an old article being addressed here https://extremeportal.force.com/ExtrArticleDetail?an=000102165 with the fix being implemented mid-Feb but doesn't appear in either release notes (firmware or cloud IQ).

Client tracking was one of the primary reasons I chose Extreme for our site and it hasn't worked this year. My most recent update on it is;
Others will be seeing the same problem but there are no updates anywhere on why basic functionality isn't reliable.

I don't enjoy spending my time troubleshooting and addressing issues that should be addressed within a vendor (I've had smaller but similar issues with Fortinet recently), I would prefer to spend my time improving our systems so if these "internal discussions" can help sort out your teams processes let us know what you want from us.

[SamPirok]

Hey guys, it's not that your comments are going unnoticed, I just try not to give you any fluff updates and we're still working on this process, as you can see. I really appreciate the recent examples, that helps a lot with internal discussions about this. 

Looking at CFD-7525 specifically, and I do realize this doesn't address the larger concerns here, that wasn't included in the release notes because it's still listed as an unverified bug. That could be because our engineers couldn't replicate it, but we found a fix for the original environment with the issue, so we published the fix just in case it helps others down the road. 

All that said, I hear you about not being able to make informed upgrade decisions if you can't trust the documentation to give you the full picture. The service delivery team will be talking about this issue again this week, and I will update this thread the moment I have any substantial updates. More examples can only help move things along so please keep adding those to this thread when you can.