I think I read somewhere that 10.2.700 was due for release this month (September 2020) starting with cloud customers who havent pressed the defer button.
Is this the case?
Not sure if you have to log in to access this but Cloud is starting their upgrade process next weekend for a go-live around October 17-18. On-prem would be released just after that Oct 19 week.
https://epicweb.epicor.com/doc/CloudAnnouncements/10.2.700%20Upgrade%20Coming%20in%20September.pdf
1 Like
Like Tyler mentioned, anyone can go to EpicWeb and see the Cloud schedule.
If you use the Epicor Help files online, you can also see the schedule in your Epicor Help.
The online help shows 10.2.200 and 10.2.300 for me.
As we are not cloud customers i have never look in that part of Epicweb before. October sounds like a reasonable assumption for the on-prem release date give the last one released was May
The cadence for the last two plus years have been April/May and September/October for Cloud. These are good months to avoid most fiscal period closes and April/May is good for Insights too. GA for on-prem occurs once Epicor considers it stable**, which is usually in a few sprints (2 or 3). Like many other software companies, releases are now fixed and don’t wait for features. If a feature isn’t ready, it just doesn’t ship until the next release.
Mark W.
** The issue with External BAQs is interesting in that it’s a feature not available to Cloud users so it wasn’t really tested until on-prem users went live. 
That one is concerning to me. As an on prem (functionally but not technically) it seems like the cloud first focus has caused a lack of quality control on particularly this 600 release.
1 Like
Agreed 100%. .600 is a hot mess.
1 Like
I think Epicor bypasses QA for their on-prem releases.
External BAQs are the only thing that dinged On-Prem people and not the Cloud that I’m aware of. I expect some pain around Kinetic since it’s a new technology stack (Angular) for Epicor. For those old enough to remember the move from V6 to V8, I think you would recall hearing the same sentiment.
Ultimately, Cloud-First should make for a better On-Prem experience. A lot of the inefficiency was hidden when the system ran on a LAN but exposed as we moved the servers further from the clients. When Epicor makes that better, those running locally should see improvement, especially those who have their own data centers and multiple facilities.
I don’t know what happens to the External BAQ in the long run. It’s based on the old paradigm of directly accessing a database which makes finer authorization control much more difficult and exposes too much implementation details to the client. Pulling in REST or GraphQL sub-queries into BAQs may be a better way to handle this functionality.
1 Like
Ok I have knowledge about Ext BAQ major issue (we are looking at an alternative way to bypass this issue … and follow thru our upgrade process to 600… 
)
Besides that what else have you found that could have an impact ?
Pierre
well I can only speak to my experience, but I watched with my own eyes during the upgrade (did it 4 different times on 4 different environments to verify) that it completely re-wrote the server directory, which equates to deleting any external BPM references. Additionally, I also watched the conversion workbench delete a bunch of BPMs related to a CSG product (User process scheduler), which was spooky as well.
Just things like that for me. Again, they have a lot of functionality to account for and it’s hard to get it right 100% of the time.
We are not live on 600 yet. I just stood up our test infrastructure last week for our upgrade project this quarter. So my testing with 600 is limited. But right away when running the migration workbench I had Epicor BPMs and BAQs fail. Have the external BAQ issue like everyone else. And just felt like I had to make a lot of adjustments to the config files manually. Things I don’t remember doing when I did the 400 install/migration. It’s little stuff really but is annoying. For example the Sys Agent. Having to change the config to start that is annoying. Feels like Epicor should just fix that.
Yes, another thing that Cloud Users won’t be doing and why as a rule I try to get away from external libraries as much as possible. We have one here and it messed up our move to Azure. It could have been done in a Directive Code Block but the consultant is used to one tool. 
But these are the things that make our systems fragile. Unless we have an automated way to manage them, we will always run into these at upgrades.
And CSG might be guilty of building pets/snowflakes as well. This shouldn’t happen. I agree with you there.
Yeah, that’s sloppy. We had bad help file references on Cloud Upgrades too. The .sysconfig file will go away with the web-based client and not a moment too soon.
1 Like
The active homepage also is the default in 10.2.600. Sloppy again IMO.
I’m sick of dealing with config files… I’ve got too many upgrade scripts just to push out a config file change.
1 Like
Oh, this one is by design. Epicor wants to put some Kinetic in front of people. Once the “Open With” capability comes back like we have with the Modern Shell, I think they’ll see better adoption here. I actually like Active Home Page and the Kinetic design in general. It aligns with most other systems like SalesForce, M365 Home Sites, etc.
Release and update binaries are now available.