This explains the new release plans in detail: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/
3.0.1 and 3.1 are a special case, because they happen to be identical. However, 3.0.2 will not be the same as 3.2. The 3.0.2 will only contain bugfixes, while 3.2 will introduce new features. There will not be a 3.1.1 or 3.2.1 unless a very critical bug is discovered in 3.1 or 3.2. If you "just want to run the most stable 3.0", stick with 3.0.x for now (which is 3.0.1). If you want to use bleeding-edge features, try out 3.2 when it's released (but be warned that it may not be as stable). On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Hannu Kröger <hkro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I feel the same as well. Would you skip 3.2 when you release another round > of bug fixes after one round of bug fixes? Or would 3.2 be released after > 3.3.? :P > > BR, > Hannu > > On 09 Dec 2015, at 16:05, Kai Wang <dep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Janne, > > You are not alone. I am also confused by that "Under normal conditions > ..." statement. I can really use some examples such as: > 3.0.0 = ? > 3.0.1 = ? > 3.1.0 = ? > 3.1.1 = ? (this should not happen under normal conditions because the fix > should be in 3.3.0 - the next bug fix release?) > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Janne Jalkanen <janne.jalka...@ecyrd.com> > wrote: > >> >> I’m sorry, I don’t understand the new release scheme at all. Both of >> these are bug fixes on 3.0? What’s the actual difference? >> >> If I just want to run the most stable 3.0, should I run 3.0.1 or 3.1? >> Will 3.0 gain new features which will not go into 3.1, because that’s a bug >> fix release on 3.0? So 3.0.x will contain more features than 3.1, as >> even-numbered releases will be getting new features? Or is 3.0.1 and 3.1 >> essentially the same thing? Then what’s the role of 3.1? Will there be more >> than one 3.1? 3.1.1? Or is it 3.3? What’s the content of that? 3.something >> + patches = 3.what? >> >> What does this statement in the referred blog post mean? "Under normal >> conditions, we will NOT release 3.x.y stability releases for x > 0.” Why >> are the normal conditions being violated already by releasing 3.1 (since 1 >> > 0)? >> >> /Janne, who is completely confused by all this, and suspects he’s the >> target of some hideous joke. >> >> On 8 Dec 2015, at 22:26, Jake Luciani <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra >> version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release >> process[4]. >> It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release. >> >> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice >> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising >> performance. >> >> http://cassandra.apache.org/ >> >> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download >> section: >> >> http://cassandra.apache.org/download/ >> >> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please >> pay >> attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to >> encounter >> any problem. >> >> Enjoy! >> >> [1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd (CHANGES.txt) >> [2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs (NEWS.txt) >> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA >> [4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/ >> >> >> > > -- Tyler Hobbs DataStax <http://datastax.com/>
