Versioning. Did version 3.2.16 changed?

[ili101]

I'm unsure if I'm misremembering, but wasn't there a different 3.2.16 release?
I see the attempt to keep the core and the template repos on the same version but this has some drawbacks.
Changing public release versions is very confusing. It's more confusing than not having versions at all.
If the goal is to keep the version matching maybe it will be beneficial to add another digit like 3.2.16.2 for the template repo?
It's also hard to get fixes for bugs without getting major updates in the same version or commit (like getting the Admin working again without switching to a new Linux distribution). A quality-of-life change could be (if possible) to break the release (like 3.2.16.2 fixes 3.2.16.3 switch to Debian).
Thank you!

[soyuka]

Yes as it was broken, I really didn't see this template revert as breaking as it's cloned and modified by end-users to fit their needs right? Do you regularly fetch the changes from this template?

[ili101]

Lately yes as I am working on a moderately new project based on it, maybe too much? every month or so on average.
Usually, I need some of the fixes here. or a fix/update of a dependency and I rather update from the template and not only from Composer so I know it's compatible (like Symfony 6.4 recently for example). Then sometimes I go on an unintended adventure of fixes and follow-up updates as a result of the template fetch like after the FrankenPHP update (:

[dunglas]

Maybe next time should we create versions such as 3.2.16-1 to not have to update tags?