Hi Daniel,

> Why not? 

Because "version hopping" is a pain. Because the fixes could have trivially
posted for 3.4. Because if those fixes are important enough to signifiy a
release they *should* actually be available for people in 3.4. Because
people get confused about not seeing SM projects that have been marked as
3.4 and are no longer visible in 3.5. Because there is simply not enough
"added value" for people to upgrade to 3.5.

Need some more? ;-)

> Also, the bug preventing projects from being saved seemed too 
> important to let wait until the 3.6, though not by much (since
> most project users can either get a squeakland image or fix it
> themselves).

Funny you mention this and only as in "waiting for 3.6" - I have the
impression there's some deep down fear about posting any updates for already
released versions. Why is this so problematic for you guys? The updates are
there to be used or else you don't need an update mechanism to begin with.
What's the point of having the 3.4final stream if nothing is ever going to
be done here? What's the point in a 3.5final stream if nothing is ever going
to be posted here either? And, if you're not planning to make any use of it,
what's the point in flagging systems as "x.y final" at all? All you're
achieving by this is making it so that people need to do surgery on their
system if they ever want to update to the next one. In this situation,
wouldn't it be better if there were a straight-forward migration path which
effectively goes x.yfinal -> x.y+1 alpha?! If you're not using the final
stream there's no point in forking the update streams.

Cheers,
  - Andreas