Hello there,
just got a brand new system and thought I might give the Hub a spin. I was quite disappointed to see that I can only download Unity 2017.1.3f1, 2017.2.1f1 and 2017.30f3. I normally always use patch releases, so for powerusers that might be interesting. I also do use unity 5.6 as well, so I would wish to be able to download those as well.
Hi Johannski,
For now we only support official releases for direct downloads in the Hub. This mean if a patch is available, we will wait until an official release is ready containing that patch. Meanwhile you can download a patch version and locate it in the Hub. For 5.6, itâs noted, weâll see if we can add it to the list.
I second the request to include patch releases. Iâm much more likely to use a patch release than a beta release, and I see the hub does include beta releases.
I hope you will reconsider the inclusion of patch releases; IMHO the appeal of the hub is the option to efortlessly update Unity, without having to download the installer manually and go through the installation process. 
I do understand that I can add releases, which I have done by now, but as @pavelkouril mentioned, it is a thing of convenience, which would make the hub more valuable for me. You could add a tab like with beta releases for patch releases. 
Managing all of the Unity that exists on the web should be the meaning of the Hub.
The user who is using patch release should be the main user of the Unity hub. I canât figure out why I donât support the patch release.
+1
I think I work as much on patch releases as non-patch releases, so not having patch releases available will be a huge drawback. I could download them manually and then add them, but thatâs really inconvenient. Maybe hide them behind a checkbox?
Also, is there any chance to get access to downloading the not publicly available platform-specific builds if weâre logged in as a user registered for that platform? Unless thatâs already in and I just havenât checked.
Hey guys,
We explicitly decided not to include the patch releases in the Hub, because we do not want people to be using the patch releases routinely - theyâre only supposed to be used if you are actually affected by one of the bugs fixed in the patch, and otherwise we donât want to promote them, due to them receiving less QA than an official build.
However, what we are planning to do is to provide a one-click install method via the Patch Releases page on the Unity website. Youâll be able to come to the site, go to the page for the patch release, read the release notes etc, and then click one button for âInstall via Unity Hubâ. At that point the Hub will take over installation and management of the patch release just like any other release. So you should still get most of the value (smoother install, automatic management of your install, no need to manually add it, etc).
Unfortunately I think this isnât possible today, because we donât have consistent handling on our servers of what it means to be âregisteredâ for a platform. We absolutely do want to fix this at some point soon.
What about release notes for the official releases/betas in the Hub?
I do understand how Unity is handling this and I would agree if⌠I can also say I successfully use normal releases without any issues. Because since 5.6 I had never a first release without issues. From 5.6 up to 2017.2 the versions were plagued by VR issues or videoplayer bugs. 2017.2 up to now I still encounter weird bugs as in the most recent one the ctrl+z after a slider has changed itâs value.
So in this cause I understand unity wants only normal releases to be included but in reality I always use patches to fix things I encounter. Of the 5 installations I have, 3 are patch versions. Just to give feedback on this statement.
As one of the intentional patch-grabbers who sets up lots of new dev machines and maintains all the docs around it for our team, Iâd prefer thereâs a path to get them in hub still. You could always add an additional disclaimer to the path-install flow in the hub.
Of course, having the â1-click-install-via-the-hubâ is a nice feature too, but I still donât think that replaces just including it in the hub itself.
Edit: for reference, the last two releases weâve used in our project (since August) have been patch releases. The first being the security patch â a good example case for you guys, and the second being a patch we targeted intentionally.
In my opinion the Hub should serve as a centralized management console for ALL Unity installations, including Patch releases.
I do not want to navigate to a web page just to click a button that will trigger an installation in the Hub. It should all be done in one place and the Hub is the perfect tool to manage all that.
I think you guys should seriously reconsider integrating patch releases into the Hub. You can always add a warning to users that Patch releases are intended only for users who are affected by a bug.
I think the Hub should completely replace the current Unity MSI/DMG installer. That means, we should never need to go to the Unity website to download an installer file. Everything can be managed via the Hub. That would be the ideal tool for me (similar to the UE4 launcher).
Thanks,
Please reconsider keeping the patch versions in the hub. I understand what youâre saying, but wouldnât that QA argument also hold for beta releases? Iâd strongly prefer to manage everything from the hub, and Iâm getting the sense that Iâm not the only one.
That said - so happy to have this tool. Thanks, guys!
Good luck getting all the platform holders to agree on a single way of doing that!
My general experience is that patch releases often fix bugs introduced in the official release. Iâm more confident in the quality of a p4 than an f3. That might be a misconception. Still, Iâd love to have a checkbox for âI want ot see patch releasesâ.
I understand trying to protect users from unnecessarily using patch releases, but I think the only real way to do that is to make the patch releases less necessary, i.e. keep the major versions stable and up-to-date with the latest platforms and platform requirements as possible.
Aside from that, itâs not obvious to me that itâs really a problem that needs solving, as long as itâs clear that patch releases are not as well tested and buyer beware. Anyone who is placing a premium on stability will stick to the major releases and anyone who really needs a fix (or desperate to try one), or just likes being on the cutting edge, will try one. In the latter case, if you get bug reports you otherwise wouldnât have, thatâs free QA, and I donât see how itâs worse than trying a beta release.
As it is, periodically I Google âunity patch releaseâ to find the patch download page, and if thereâs a new patch browse the release notes to see if thereâs a fix that looks important, especially if itâs something that might fix something Iâm experiencing (which brings up another point: browsing the patch releases is like peeking into the bug databse to see the latest âwhatâs fixedâ).
So even if Iâm overusing patch releases, sort of hiding them doesnât really stop me from searching for and sometimes using them, it just makes it more time-consuming. And actually, my preference is to stick with the non-patch releases (especially since I do WebGL builds), but usually I feel compelled to try a patch release at some point, and once I switch to a patch release, I figure I might as well try the others, until the next major release comes along. Although maybe Unity Hub will help with this, as I may be more likely to switch from a patch release back to the previous major release as appropriate, whereas right now I just stick with the latest that I downloaded.
+1 on older Unity versions, when making a small amend to an older project developed in 5.6 I would rather stick to that editor version.
Patch releases NEEDS to be an option in Unity Hub. Even if they are hidden behind a setting checkbox like Baste said (this is for example how the Minecraft launcher handles pre-release and really old versions). You say only use them if you are âaffectedâ by the fixes, but everyone is affected because it patches bugs from the final releases that everyone are affected by, sometimes even SECURITY bugs. If you hide it behind a checkbox, fine, inconvenient, but it works. But having patch releases it absolutely a must for me if Iâm going to use Unity Hub. Patch releases are really the only versions of Unity I use besides beta. (Even if I should only be using final releases, I live on the bleeding edge, Iâm literally on Firefox Nightly writing this right now!). Itâs not hard to add a checkbox setting and disclaimer.
I think there might be a slight misunderstanding on how we manage patches. We are already offering patches to official releases in the hub, like 2017.3.1f1 which is the latest collection of all the patches for 2017.3 in a fully tested version. Versions that end in pX are patches that we quickly deploy so that users that experience specific issues can updated their version to overcome their specific problem. However, from the Release Management perspective, we want our users to stick to fX versions, which have gone through the whole QA cycle and offer a better quality.
I hope this clarifies a little bit the situation?
Weâre aware. No, trust me, we really understand that. We understood that a week ago when Superpig wrote the same thing.
Look, I was writing out a diplomatic answer, but I just⌠man. Could you maybe, for once, trust your users to know what they want?
We know what a patch is. I know that youâre not trying to be condesending, but when we go âwe understand that you want us to be on fX releases, but please let us download pX releases on the hub anywayâ, explaining that you want us to be on fX releases again isnât helping.
We end up on pX releases sometimes for various reasons. If those are not available from the Hub, then we end up with two different ways of downloading Unity, which is really cumbersome and unneccessary.
Iâm still here and still reading all the replies btw.
What weâre currently thinking is: