On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Jack Krupansky <jack.krupan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's great to see clear support status marked on the 3.0.x and 2.x releases > on the download page now. A couple more questions... > > 1. What is the support and stability status of 3.1 and 3.2 (as opposed to > 3.2.1)? Are they "for non-production development only"? Are they considered > "stable"? The page should say. > I disagree that the page should make a recommendation here, but see below. 2. Is there simply no "stable" release for 3.x, or is the latest tick-tock > release by definition considered "stable"? > If you want to have that mental box, then I would put the most recent bug fix release in it. (3.1.1 will be going back on the download page soon; removing it was an oversight.) > 3. The first paragraph says "If a critical bug is found, a patch will be > released against the most recent bug fix release", but in fact the latest > critical patch (3.2.1) is against a feature release, not a bug fix release. > Should that simply say "... against the most recent tick-tock release" > regardless of whether it was an even (feature) or odd (bug fix) release? > Case by case basis. In this instance, the bug that prompted the release was a new regression, so there was no need to patch 3.1. (And no, I don't want to belabor the syntax on the download page to spell this out in minute detail.) -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
