I agree with the thought of not recommending any production ready version. If something is not production ready, it should ideally be release candidate and when GA happens, it should implicitly mean stable as it is assumed that the GA is only done for production ready releases.
ThanksAnuj Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, 20 Jan, 2016 at 11:03 am, Jonathan Ellis<jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: 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
