TL-DR;
The string defined to be propagated on the "version" field of MNDP was forgotten to be updated to "Stable".
And highly probably hardcoded, not being composed by "version" + "channel" variables.

Extended version:
Today I Finally decided to use unicorn version 7 of RouterOS on a production environment.
Wich one? My house!

Better to suffer the possible mishaps of an update on your own network than be cursed by consulting clients discovering "little details" in their production networks.
A different version of the phrase "Eat your own dog food."

As you can see on the prints, I'm using "Stable" channel with v7.1 od RouterOS and v7.1 of Routerboard Firmware.

But RouterOS is propagating "(Testing)" on its Mikrotik Neighbor Discovery Protocol Announcements.


Is just a Cosmetic Bug!
I Won't affect anybody's network performance...
But brings a suggestion of the string of "Version" in MNDP be composed of multiple variables in the environment.
P.S.: I also used Wireshark to check if there wasn't any mistakes of buffers...

It's not a bug. Webpage release system is not the same as RouterOS build system. If we decide to promote a version to another channel, it requires a rebuild, which seemed like not crucial just for this

It's not a bug. Webpage release system is not the same as RouterOS build system. If we decide to promote a version to another channel, it requires a rebuild, which seemed like not crucial just for this

So, are you saying that those that choose "stable" channel are actually using "testing" version?

What about an infographic diagram of version paths to clear the doubts?

There are two branches v6 and v7.
Each of them has their own channels, if there is v7 "testing", "stable" or whatever, it does not replace versions in v6 channels.
There is only one released v7 version (7.1), so it basically fills all the channels of v7 branch until newer version is built for specific channel.

There are two branches v6 and v7.
Each of them has their own channels, if there is v7 "testing", "stable" or whatever, it does not replace versions in v6 channels.
There is only one released v7 version (7.1), so it basically fills all the channels of v7 branch until newer version is built for specific channel.

Two branches... OK! This is quite common and healthy!
Existing channels "testing", "stable" or whatever, is also quite common and healthy.

The question is:
7.1 is "Stable" ou "Testing"?
- If it is "Stable", why is showing "(testing)" on MNDP?
- If it is "Testing", why is showing "stable" on update channel?
- And why did it change from what was choose on the upgrade process without questioning to operator or warning on release notes?

Hey guys... As I said, is just a cosmetic bug. But it is a bug.
Accept, correct, and lets move on...

7.1 is "Stable" ou "Testing"?

Stable. Clearly stated.

There are two branches v6 and v7.
Each of them has their own channels, if there is v7 "testing", "stable" or whatever, it does not replace versions in v6 channels.
There is only one released v7 version (7.1), so it basically fills all the channels of v7 branch until newer version is built for specific channel.

Two branches... OK! This is quite common and healthy!
Existing channels "testing", "stable" or whatever, is also quite common and healthy.

The question is:
7.1 is "Stable" ou "Testing"?
- If it is "Stable", why is showing "(testing)" on MNDP?
- If it is "Testing", why is showing "stable" on update channel?
- And why did it change from what was choose on the upgrade process without questioning to operator or warning on release notes?

Hey guys... As I said, is just a cosmetic bug. But it is a bug.
Accept, correct, and lets move on...

You are completely right, it is a bug and it needs to be corrected. I noticed the same thing on a system I updated today to the "stable" branch of version 7.1

Hi, ROS v7.1 is released as "stable" but it shows itself as "testing"...
And even this sounds not really "production-ready" stable:

[...]note that RouterOS v7 is still actively being developed in most parts and is not a direct replacement for RouterOS v6 yet.[...]

Id not dare to upgrade my network to ROS7.1


And whats about this:

Routing config cannot be upgraded if any other older v7 version was already installed previously. Config is converted only once.

Does this mean, if I installed once a Beta, my Routes cant get converted?!?!?!!?!?!? WHAT??!!

Does this mean, if I installed once a Beta, my Routes cant get converted?!?!?!!?!?!? WHAT??!!

You do not need to upgrade anything. Software is free and free to use

When you upgrade from 6.x to 7.x beta config will be converted.
If you then upgrade from 7.x beta to 7.1 Stable it will not be converted once more, since its already converted.
That is what Mrz tells you.

Upgrade from 6.x to 7.1 stable will convert your config.

As with all upgrade, if you take stuff seriously, you should always test it on equal test device, to see if all are ok before you upgrade.
Not all configuration are test by all nor by MT, so its your responsibility to test it out.

It's not a bug. Webpage release system is not the same as RouterOS build system. If we decide to promote a version to another channel, it requires a rebuild, which seemed like not crucial just for this

Hey Guys.
As I said, IT WAS A BUG!
A cosmetic bug, but it was a bug.
And it has been fixed...
Thank you!

Seems to me that you should start read more forum posts.

7.1 was released in test train.
But after som more testing it was decided that it was stable enough to call stable.
So at the download page it was moved from testing to stable without updating the software it self.
How hard could that be to understand?

So at the download page it was moved from testing to stable without updating the software it self.
How hard could that be to understand?

Well... I see you are ignoring the fact that one packages updates the track to be chooses is STABLE.
So, your theory that "ohh, It was just a thing on the download website" is not correct.
If they decided that is stable enough to call it stable inside the software itself, they should correct it also on the MNDP strings. Simple like that!
To much mimimi to accept a simple cosmetic bug. Face it!

You're just ignorant. And apparently a hypocrite. YouYouYou.

Considering the content of your sentence, considering all this effort to avoid accepting the simple fact that it was a bug, considering the origin of the statement, I'll face it with a compliment.

Love, Douglas.