I installed the program a long time ago but for almost 6 months not a single update arrived. My version was 2,0,4,5 and so it remained
since i press the refresh button
The program is definitely under active development – new Canary versions are released quite frequently. That being said I would recommend you stick with the Beta releases. A new beta release will happen at some point.
Are you having any problems with the current Beta 220.127.116.11?
There’s a very annoying bug in current beta that fills up temp space when a compacting takes place (temp files aren’t properly deleted). It’s supposedly fixed in Canary since months ago.
This is my issue I think. Since it is running in a production env, can canary be used safely?
I’d recommend you manually delete those files (maybe even a scheduled task) … switching to Canary for a production environment doesn’t sound like a wise move. Sure, it may fix this issue but may introduce other bugs.
Not sure when the next beta version will be released.
I suppose the current canary is stable enough to warant a new beta release?
I’ll have to defer to others people’s judgment! I don’t use the canary releases myself.
Others should help, but I can’t think of big forum regression reports on 18.104.22.168 canary though I’m always wondering whether canary has enough (brave) users running it in non-critical production-similar manners. Maybe some more users will try it out on the Experimental channel if that serves as a pre-Beta test again.
Usage reports do show the version in use, but I’m not sure how good a view that gives of canary’s usage. Some of the proving of things like network error handling of parallel uploads may need time and exposure.
Commits after 22.214.171.124 (out a month) look heavy on code tidying, plus a few enhancements and fixes that maybe could be nominated for inclusion by committers (and tested somehow?). I’d nominate issue 3787, except nobody seems willing/able to commit it. This concerns me because it’s a data corruption situation.
#3790 is a privacy regression in DB bug reports, but those are manual and they seem not much used but maybe should be if we hope to ever fix the tough-to-track-down backup corruptions that sometimes occur.
To further address the original question, Beta releases are fairly rare. Changes go into canary, break stuff sometimes, and eventually things stabilize, and Beta (and maybe Experimental) goes on to a wider group:
I think most issues we’re facing currently are issues that also exist on beta.
Both my machines running the newest canary have been doing fine, although I’m unaffected by the parallel upload changes so I can’t contribute to validating those changes further.
I’ve been using 126.96.36.199 for a month on Linux with SFTP without any issues.
How can we see usage statistics for versions that are being used? I would be a bit concerned about how well all the various backends are being tested with the latest canary, especially with the new parallel upload code. For example, I discovered the following issue almost a month after it was introduced in 188.8.131.52:
I do have a simple test suite that has been passing with the following backends:
- Amazon Cloud Drive
- B2 Cloud Storage
- Google Cloud Storage
- Google Drive
- Microsoft One Drive
- Open Drive
Yep, I would use an “experimental” version on a couple of my machines.
The usage reporter stats are public here:
Unfortunately, they do not include what version the users are running.
I have put up a new canary release. If there are no big reports, we can promote it to an experimental on friday or so.
Since the new one isn’t announced and isn’t popping up in the GUI interface even if you are already running a canary, I don’t think it’s likely to get much if any testing. Currently, the “about” in the GUI tells me that the 05-12 canary is available and doesn’t mention the 06-17 one.
Releases - Duplicati doesn’t have info on 06-17 either.
(a fresh “check for updates” in the About GUI did bring up 06-17)
Yeah, there was a problem with the build script and it did not create the usual announcement for some reason.
It looks like you got the update after refreshing. That is on purpose. To avoid hammering the update server, the check is only done once a week.