Next steps

[Eric Timmons]

Mostly sounds good to me. Assuming you're still interested in more 
expressive version numbers and constraints for 3.4, I'll work on moving 
that off the back burner.

Another 3.3 release might be in order to get !189 out (although maybe 
it's not that important; I'm honestly surprised by how few complaints 
I've seen about it).

And if there's another 3.3 release, I'd like to nominate !194 for 
merging beforehand. !195 is also a bug fix, but the bug has existed for 
almost as long as the feature has been around. So perhaps delaying it 
for 3.4 is more prudent.

On 11/17/21 9:14 AM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> Then, if we want to back patch, we can create a |stable| branch and 
> cherry-pick onto that (using |maint| would create too much potential for 
> confusion).

I'd suggest something like 3-3-stable instead (or really anything that 
gets the 3.3 in there). The branch can be deleted when 3.4 is released 
so we're not supporting more than one release at a time. I still think 
having a "stable" branch whose history changes isn't a great idea.

-Eric