V16.1 (1629) and V17 (1704) Released on the same day/ What's going on?

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The title says it all...  In addition, the history notes for 1629 shows 4th October!

Does Anyone know what's going on compatibility-wise?  Are the improvements in 1629 incorporated into 1704 or what?

Most confusing!

TIA,
Paolo

[wivel]

Good questions,Paolo.

It seems to me, after quick glance at the release notes, that most of what is added to v16.1 are fixes and functionality already present in v17.

Wouldn't be the firsttime I'm wrong, though 

Henrik

[Modesto Vega]

This is most confusing, specially as we going to start considering a v17 upgrade.

[Takeshi K]

Recently, the release date and the posted date for each release are not the same day.
The build 1629 was released on 04-Oct-2024, not yesterday.

I guess that they found forgetting the post for build 1629 while posting the build 1704 release

[Sunshine]

Well that's a first

[Modesto Vega]

I have a question related to this subject, what are the pros and cons of upgrading to 1629 vs upgrading to c?

I would love to hear the recommendations from other members of the forum regarding whether it is best to upgrade to 1704 and 1629.

Just to clarify, we are considering moving everybody to 1704 or 1629, and not mixing 1704 and 1629 installation as discussed here https://sparxsystems.com/forums/smf/index.php/topic,48848.0.html

[Geert Bellekens]

If you are doing the effort of upgrading, I would definitely go directly for v17

Geert

[Sunshine]

I concur with Geert.
Some may call it a "No brainer".

[Modesto Vega]

Thank you both.

Is v17 stable enough, has enough new functionality, and does not break existing functionality to merit an upgrade? The reason for this question is that by releasing V16.1 (1629), Sparx Systems could be implying that v17 is not stable enough.

For us, the upgrade to v17 involves upgrading to PCS 6.0 - Build 163.

[Geert Bellekens]

Is v17 stable enough, has enough new functionality, and does not break existing functionality to merit an upgrade?

My personal impression is that it is indeed stable enough.
For me that means I start testing it for the use cases we use EA for (XSD generation, document generation, usage of add-ins,...-)
I just started testing, but so far it looks OK. We found a minor inconsistency for XSD generation, but nothing blocking yet.

Geert