Before we enable updating across core minor versions by default, we should probably figure out how to present this information to the user.
Right now, we're using the term "minor version" the way semver means it (the middle number has been incremented). From the user's perspective, the potential for disruption caused by minor version changes are more like major upgrades, and need that kind of testing. They are not, qualitatively and in their possible impact, "minor". Yet, I fear that calling them "minor updates" in the UI makes them sound quick, easy, and harmless. That's the exact opposite of what we should be conveying to people.
We should probably not, in the UI, call updating to another minor version of core a "minor update". What should we call it instead? I don't know, but it should probably be something else.
One idea that occurs to me is "minor upgrade". I think "upgrade" sounds more serious than "update", which is good, because changing to a new minor is a more serious undertaking. And yet the "minor" qualifier hopefully communicates that this is not a major upgrade (i.e., D9 to D10).
Other ideas would be welcome!
Active
3.0
User interface
Not all content is available!
It's likely this issue predates Contrib.social: some issue and comment data are missing.
For some background on the use of upgrade and update. Other systems use 'upgrade' for major version changes and 'update' for minor.
https://ubuntu.com/server/docs/upgrade-introduction
https://fossbytes.com/whats-the-difference-between-update-and-upgrade/
https://wordpress.org/documentation/article/updating-wordpress/
https://wordpress.org/documentation/article/upgrading-wordpress-extended...
https://docs.joomla.org/Portal:Upgrading_Versions