Many software solutions or operating systems are developed using a release stream approach that caters to the end user appetite for features balanced with stability.
Ubuntu (a Linux distribution) has half yearly feature releases with a Long Term Support (LTS) version every two years.
The LTS versions are maintained for 10 years and the frequent releases for ~9 months.
Debian uses a multi-tiered approach with Stable, Testing, Unstable, & Experimental. Simply put - Stable is current (and conservative), Testing is 'next stable' and pretty solid with many latest features, and the other two are likely to break at any moment and render your system unusable (for a few minutes until you fix it... 🙂 )
On the flip side you have full rolling release approaches where you never have a 'point in time' release but get every new feature as it comes along. Yes. I use Arch. Occasionally.....
ArcGIS Pro seems to be leaning too far into the rolling release approach, in my opinion. There are major versions, but these are only based on a feature weight approach with no further support expected to be given once the next major version is released.
My request is that Esri change the release cycle of Pro to be more in line with the Ubuntu approach where we, as paying customers and, currently, unpaid beta testers, can decide if we want to be on the 'give me the latest' bullet train or stick with a stable Camry version that will continue to receive bug fixes and security patches for a defined long period of time.
I hope that some of the bugs in 3.3.x will get fixed but I am afraid of the issues that we are bound to find in 3.4 due to all the new great things it will be able to do, allegedly.
