Thanks for this clarification, however... > So, for the 3.x line: > If you absolutely must have the most stable version of C* and don't care at > all about the new features introduced in even versions of 3.x, you want the > 3.0.N release.
So there is no reason why you would ever want to run 3.1 then? Why was it released? What is the lifecycle of 3.0.x? Will it become obsolete once 3.3 comes out? > If you want access to the new features introduced in even release versions of > 3.x (3.2, 3.4, 3.6), you'll want to run the latest odd version (3.3, 3.5, > 3.7, etc) after the release containing the feature you want access to (so, if > the feature's introduced in 3.4 and we haven't dropped 3.5 yet, obviously > you'd need to run 3.4). Are there going to be minor releases of the even releases, i.e. 3.2.1? Or will they all be delegated to 3.3.x -series? Or will there be a series of identical releases like 3.1 and 3.0.1 with 3.2.1 and 3.3? > This is only going to be the case during the transition phase from old > release cycles to tick-tock. We're targeting changes to CI and quality focus > going forward to greatly increase the stability of the odd releases of major > branches (3.1, 3.3, etc) so, for the 4.X releases, our recommendation would > be to run the highest # odd release for greatest stability. So here you tell to run 3.1, but above you tell to run 3.0.1? Why is there a different release scheme specifically for 3.0.x instead of putting those fixes to 3.1? /Janne
