Customer wasnts to ugrade from 1.4 patch 3 to 2.1 and is aksing for advise since 2.2 posted. Should I be telling them to use 2.0 for stability?

[paulle]

Customer wasnts to ugrade from 1.4 patch 3 to 2.1 and is aksing for advise since 2.2 posted. Should I be telling them to use 2.0 for stability?

What is the best way to track which versions of ISE to recomend?

[Jason Kunst · Accepted solution]

It all depends what your customer has a need for in the release.

2.2 just came out and likely to have bugs but they should always proof it in the lab, unless they need something in 2. I would say 2.0 as its longer living, unless they need something in 2.1

2.1 will be supported for a time as well

It really depends on what they want.  2.0 and 2.1 are good releases that have different features

[Jason Kunst]

regardless they can't go wrong with 2.0 its a long lived release stable with lots of patches 2.0.1 to be specific

[Craig Hyps]

To clarify just a bit more...All software will have some defects which need to be resolved.  Be confident that each ISE release does go through extensive internal functional, stress, and performance/scale testing.  In addition to lengthy customer beta and pre-production runs, we also run each new release in an internal production network for a while to further vet out potential issues.  All top severity defects are resolved prior to release. 

That said, as a major feature release, a more conservative approach would be to deploy a version that has had a longer maturation period across a broader spectrum of customer environments.  To Jason's guidance, these would include ISE 2.0.1 and ISE 2.1.0 with current patches applied.

Regards,

Craig