Hi, Stefan, My opinion is: Actually it doesn't matter which upstream branch we use, but wether we can continuously focus on this project...eg, KDE 5 is considered unstable but our KDE team still do perfect things. So far upstream doesn't have a clear release schedule either. Although users would like to call eg. 2.2 stable, 2.3 unstable, something like that. But neither 2.2 nor 2.3 is stable. Because: 1. There's no backport support so far by Cinnamon upstream. So 2.2 just means old. They usually just fix things in newer versions... 2. Upstream officially doesn't support other distributions (That's why I didn't push Cinnamon an official spin into openSUSE Factory at the first time, and write something that "Cinnamon is not a DE but a community project of Linux Mint". Historically speaking Cinnamon is a "middle" product of Linux Mint for MATE DE) Even if upstream has backport support, we can't be sure that kinda backport works on openSUSE. 3. We don't have "time and programming skills" required to maintain such a so-called "stable" branch ourselves. It will just double our work and bug reports. 4. Upstream doesn't have clear dependency cycle. I tried to build 2.2 branch after 2.3's release, but eg. which version of muffin that Cinnamon 2.2 requires? No hints at all. If we built solid stuff on some liquid bases, then that's not stable but float... That's my considerations and that's why I always prefer concenterate on fixing existing stuff instead of providing something that we actually can't promise due to various facts. Greetings MargueriteN�����r��y隊Z)z{.��ZrF��x>�{.n�+������Ǩ��r��i�m��0��ޙ������� ��$j���0�����Ǩ�