Hi Berker,

Thank you for your review,

> I don't think most of the version numbers are very important here and I wouldn't change them unless there is a valid reason.
My first opinion when I have read the documentation was "but this doc is
out of date".
It's my reason, for me, it's valid.

In fact, that was not for the pleasure to change some numbers, but to
reflect the reality.

> 
> > -3.4 and 3.5, first fix it in ``3.4`` and then merge ``3.4`` into ``default``
> > -(which holds the future 3.5).
> > +3.5 and 3.6, first fix it in ``3.5`` and then merge ``3.6`` into ``default``
> > +(which holds the future 3.6).
> 
> This change looks wrong to me. In the original text, 3.4 and default
> are branch names. There won't be a branch named 3.6 until late 2016.
What do you suggest in this case? 
> 
> > -For versions 3.4 and before, this was conventionally done when the final
> > -release was cut (for example, 3.4.0 final).
> > +For versions 3.5 and before, this was conventionally done when the final
> > +release was cut (for example, 3.5.0 final).
> 
> This also looks wrong to me.
Ok
> 
> I'm +1 to commit the following changes in devcycle.rst:
> 
> > -There are 5 open branches right now in the Mercurial repository:
> > +There are 6 open branches right now in the Mercurial repository:
>  
> > -- the ``default`` branch holds the future 3.5 version and descends from ``3.4``
> > -  (RM: Larry Hastings)
> > +- the ``default`` branch holds the future 3.6 version and descends from ``3.5``
> > +  (RM: Ned Deily)
> > +- the ``3.5`` branch holds bug fixes for future 3.5.x maintenance releases
> > +  and descends from ``3.4`` (RM: Larry Hastings)
> 
> It might also worth to update the build-dep command in setup.rst.
I agree, I am going to check that

What do you suggest for this patch? Update my patch with the right
paragraphes ?

Tell me,

Thank you