We have now entered the next phase of the release cycle.
Blender 4.3 development continues in the blender-v4.3-release branch, for bug
fixing only. Blender 4.4 development started in the main branch, for new features.
For more details on how to commit and merge, see Stabilizing Branch . Please read this carefully!
Please focus on bug fixing in the next few weeks, to make sure Blender 4.3 is in good shape. I also like to remind everyone that high priority bug reports have to be fixed before working on new features for 4.4.
During Beta patch review is highly encouraged. Please try to get a pair of
eyes on your changes before they are sent to blender-v4.3-release. For
the release candidate (November 6) patch review is mandatory in the release branch.
From what I’ve read here and here, the plan is to release ‣ Blender 4.4, ‣ then 4.5 LTS, ‣ then 5.0, ‣ 5.1, ‣ 5.2 LTS, ‣ 5.3, ‣ 5.4, ‣ 5.5 LTS, ‣ 6.0 …
What’s the reasoning behind these big version jumps (ie: from 4.5 LTS to 5.0 ; from 5.5 LTS to 6.0) ?
Why do you plan to skip versions 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 ?
The version numbers are just a way to communicate their order of release. They don’t have to be numericaly equaly destributed between version jumps. It is just an index number and it makes a lot of sense as it is now.
There are even more inbetween updates that are not even listed in the milestone calendar like 4.2.1, 4.2.2, etc
It depends on the versioning scheme that developers adopt for their software. Some developers choose to jump to a major version number when significant improvements are made. However, this is not the case with the Blender Foundation, which “metronomically” publishes three releases a year (one LTS and two regular releases).
Since Blender 3.0 series, the Blender release numbering has changed: Blender LTS and 3.0 — Blender Developers Blog, and I think it was a great move. Going from x.yy (ie: Blender 2.93) to x.y.z (ie: Blender 3.6.2) was a very valid change and still makes sense.
I am just skeptical about the reason to automatically jump to the next major version when 2 years have passed. There’s no real benefit to do that, IMO.
I doubt anyone would expect minor fixes (like 4.2.1 or 4.2.2) to be listed on the milestones page, as these releases mostly contain bug fixes.
No one can know in advance if there will ever be such minor releases.
For us, the users/artists, it can be psychological. It is a reminder of the continuing progress as well as a constant reassurance that Blender development is alive and kicking. You get all the mind boost you need to stick with it.
For the rest of the industry it is a clear demonstration of determined and rapid progression. I am seeing its effects first hand in the VFX world. Blender is gradually turning heads of 3D artists that i am working with and i would have never believed they would doubt their legacy 3D apps. That’s all happening because of Blender’s non stop reminders in the news cycle with every major version release.
Besides, what would be the benefit to divide the release cycle into 10 parts just so that the numbering would be equally distributed between the major releases? Does anyone who doesn’t have OCD care about that?
Plannability. Major versions allow developers to do deep code changes, that can also break compatibility. There are already changes planned for 5.0.
But in the end, versioning schemes are kinda arbitrary among software projects. As long as it’s not random or chaotic, it’s really up to the project to choose a scheme that works for them.