I agree with both your and Tim's arguments, it really just depends on the angle you're looking from and what insights you already have. It will be interesting to see the result of these discussions though!
One of those insights I want to add is regarding the release of your bugfix (PR #7189): whenever Umbraco HQ releases a patch, they need to automatically update all Umbraco Cloud sites (running on the same minor). This makes releasing patches a time and resource intensive action for HQ, as maintenance windows need to be communicated, custom patch code created and tested (I believe Cloud applies a git patch and runs custom database actions, so it prevents the normal upgrade screen), a lot of sites will get restarted and additional support will be required if something doesn't go right.
I've noticed the same on multiple of my PRs (although not a Gold Partner): some small changes that are also simple to test, but fixes some critical issue (for you/your current project), sometimes take months to get merged and released, because they don't end up in the next patch release...
And to be fair: releasing a patch per bugfix isn't realistic either, so different things must be weighted in. This is just one of the things that might tip the scale in favour of not releasing patches, but including it in the next minor.
One solution might be to release official beta patches for these kind of issues, like they sometimes release a RC for minors. This would help developers continue with their project, have an easy way to upgrade to the next stable version again and remove the requirement of supporting and updating the Cloud sites for HQ. Any thoughts on that?
I like to disagree. The bugfix I mentioned was created and verified to be working. Maybe I did not make this clear enough. I requested it to be in the next patch release. However it was marked as breaking so at least I would have expected it to be in the next minor. But it took several minors to get included. Bug was reported on 8.3.0 and the fix was part of 8.6.0. So that is too long in my opinion.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I agree with both your and Tim's arguments, it really just depends on the angle you're looking from and what insights you already have. It will be interesting to see the result of these discussions though!
One of those insights I want to add is regarding the release of your bugfix (PR #7189): whenever Umbraco HQ releases a patch, they need to automatically update all Umbraco Cloud sites (running on the same minor). This makes releasing patches a time and resource intensive action for HQ, as maintenance windows need to be communicated, custom patch code created and tested (I believe Cloud applies a git patch and runs custom database actions, so it prevents the normal upgrade screen), a lot of sites will get restarted and additional support will be required if something doesn't go right.
I've noticed the same on multiple of my PRs (although not a Gold Partner): some small changes that are also simple to test, but fixes some critical issue (for you/your current project), sometimes take months to get merged and released, because they don't end up in the next patch release...
And to be fair: releasing a patch per bugfix isn't realistic either, so different things must be weighted in. This is just one of the things that might tip the scale in favour of not releasing patches, but including it in the next minor.
One solution might be to release official beta patches for these kind of issues, like they sometimes release a RC for minors. This would help developers continue with their project, have an easy way to upgrade to the next stable version again and remove the requirement of supporting and updating the Cloud sites for HQ. Any thoughts on that?
I like to disagree. The bugfix I mentioned was created and verified to be working. Maybe I did not make this clear enough. I requested it to be in the next patch release. However it was marked as breaking so at least I would have expected it to be in the next minor. But it took several minors to get included. Bug was reported on 8.3.0 and the fix was part of 8.6.0. So that is too long in my opinion.