I've been getting almost 1 firmware update per day lately.
Can anyone explain this unusual high frequency?
1 Like
Appears to be just some “quick” patches to fix some edge conditions that cropped up with the new release. For the most part if you wanted to wait for a few days for the patches to stop coming out and then update you’d be fine.
3 Likes
That's been my approach - wait till things settle down and then do the upgrade. The downside is that inevitably, there is another major release shortly after I upgrade 
5 Likes
Or the issues/regressions really don't really seem to start UNTIL I upgrade and I end up scrambling to keep things updated.. I really have a knack for this sort of thing.
I am very thankful that HE is this responsive though. The platform keeps getting better and better.
6 Likes
I have paused at .137 for a little while.
"Hot fixes" following a major update correct issues introduced with the major release. The frequency of these "minor" releases depends on the gravity of the problem identified, and how many users it affects.
If significant number of users are affected, the hot fix is released as soon as possible (example this past weekend there have been two hot fixes released back to back that addressed different issues).
6 Likes
I'd best not mentiom my problems with basic rules restricted not being released by a switch since .138
And I'd better not mention it would've been nice to be able to "export" RM Legacy rules into RM 5.1.
Now I had to manually rewrite tens of rules, with the prospect of redoing all that in the future RM 6.1, or whatever..
3 Likes
Yup, that is how it works. I'll just reiterate what has already been said 100x on here though - if the rule works, there is no need to re-do it in the new RM version... Just leave it in the version you created it.
13 Likes
Why would you export Legacy RM rules? They aren't broken by RM 5.1...
8 Likes
No need to redo functioning rules just because there's a new version of Rule Machine. There are folks here who still have functioning rules created with Rule 2.5!
1 Like
In reply to all trying to seed in the same wrong idea:
What if I still need ALL my old rules to benefit from the new functionalities (predicates, if/else improvements, other bug fixes)?! Why should I use the old & flawed RM's when there is a new improved one?! Am I missing something here?!?
Won't there be some point where the really old RM stuff will have to get deprecated though? Seems like eventually it would start to become an issue by the extra maintenance (due to the growing code base complexity) and/or resources needed to keep running. 
1 Like
The difference is that old is not "flawed" just that the new is a step forward. If the old was flawed, it would have been fixed. Likewise, if the old could have been altered, without taking the risk of breaking it, there wouldn't be "a new improved one".
5 Likes
Ok, I take back the word "flawed"...still, what if "the other stuff I wrote"?!
Seems to me like everyone here is trying to convince me I shouldn't bother rewriting 5.1 rules, even if I personally find some improvements I could take advantage of.
Can you share some examples of your rules that worked for your needs at the time you created them, but are now so inadequate that they must be replaced with a newer rule?
Like others, I have old rules that still do what I wanted them to do when I created them. I’m sure I could recreate the automation logic with new rules and even use a predicate condition or two now that that’s an option.
But if the rule still does what it needs to do, why would I?
Edit: ultimately, you should spend your time however you see fit. But there seems to be a persistent myth in some threads here in the forum that all old rules must be updated to new rules just because the version # of rule machine has increased.
4 Likes
Well, I guess you should know better from the release notes, but still, now that I have to argue my reasons...I need to use predicates to simplify my IF's...is that good enough?
1 Like
If it works, how’s it flawed?
2 Likes
it's not perfect, but it works! this is not the topic here, though, can we please drop this issue already?
If you use cloud backups, please go to at least .140
5 Likes
