Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com> writes: >> My impression is also that 3.30, 3.32 are stable and entirely usable for >> users. > > Small clarification here: the 3.x.0 releases AREN'T considered stable, > you should wait for 3.x.1 before targeting the newer release.
Thanks; I had figured that out over the years, but great to say it again. This ".0" isn't considered stable, while reasonable, is pretty unusual. Perhaps the only other example is gcc. It might be a clue that beta/rc don't get used, and you need a release to get feedback -- having maintained other projects, I get that. It would be good for all .0 releases to carry a Big Scary Warning, and to specifically request that packages not be updated to them. Maybe you are already doing that; I am hazy on when and where I see release announcements -- I am assuming there is email to the users list. (My bias is that qgis the project releases sources and packaging systems package and provide binaries, and that qgis the project doing binaries is remedial because the (mostly windows) packaging world is not working well. Hence source announcements being the standard path and the most important thing.) (A packaging system might have packages for each branch, in which case a .0 package is fine. But a packaging system with one package should not update.) _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
