+1 on 3 mos
+1 on focusing JDK8 efforts into the 5.16.x release line
> On Jan 29, 2021, at 7:47 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>
> My bad: I did a mistake, the proposal is every 2 months.
>
> But you are right, 3 months for both is more "acceptable" and easy.
>
> So basically, a release per quarter is probably do-able.
>
> I will try to sustain this schedule.
>
> As soon as we have a consensus, I will update the website with the
> schedule/details.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>> Le 29 janv. 2021 à 13:38, Christopher Shannon
>> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> +1000 to everything Robbie said. Robbie pretty nailed down what I wanted to
>> say.
>>
>> The only thing I'll re-iterate is I think a schedule is a good idea but the
>> main issue I see here is the frequency/pace proposed which seems too
>> aggressive. Especially the part about "every 2 weeks" which is never going
>> to happen and is not sustainable based on history. Honestly I think that
>> promising anything more than a release every 3 months seems iffy to me.
>> Even monthly probably won't be doable and would often be late.
>>
>> Also keep in mind a release means performing the entire process from doing
>> the release, voting, announcements, website updates, etc so there's a good
>> amount of work that needs to be done for each release. So we need to be
>> more realistic on what is and isn't going to happen considering this is all
>> volunteer work. No one is going to complain if we produce more releases
>> than promised but under delivering and being late consistently is a really
>> bad idea after setting user expectations.
>>
>> In terms of my own involvement, I am happy to help with releases but only
>> on occasion and it would be hard to promise when I can do them. I've been
>> busy the past year or 2 with doing many other things at work now besides
>> AMQ related things as my tasking has changed a bit so my time to help is
>> more limited. (been working with Kafka more for one thing) I will still
>> have some time coming up to support 5.x and help with Artemis but it's just
>> not as much as it used to be a couple years ago when that was mostly my
>> full time job.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:11 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Doing more frequent releases sounds good, and to more of a schedule
>>> also. Saying what JDK etc a release uses/supports on the site is also
>>> good. We aren't allowed to direct everyday users to unreleased
>>> software as a matter of policy, so I would say that 5.17.x shouldnt be
>>> mentioned until released though.
>>>
>>> On the releases, one issue I see with the proposal would be the
>>> frequency. Are folks actually able to handle a two week cadance, as
>>> recent years/releases don't really seem to support that? It took 6
>>> months to do 5.16.1. It is already heading for 2 weeks since the
>>> 5.16.1 vote closed and despite apparently containing an announced
>>> security fix the release still isn't even on the website yet (aside, I
>>> see the download page is also currently broken once more, as the
>>> release was again prematurely deleted from the mirrors). This gap
>>> seems a repeating issue, plus half of the recent releases are also
>>> never announced, sometimes even after a nudge. Advertising
>>> expectations of a release every 2 weeks doesn't currently seem
>>> remotely sustainable.
>>>
>>> I would propose a more balanced target being mentioned than that, of
>>> say at least a month but probably a good bit more. Its always possible
>>> to over-deliver occasionally if needed/possible. I'd also suggest the
>>> website only mention proposed frequencies rather than specific dates,
>>> avoiding needing them to be updated as frequently and often looking
>>> stale once it inevitably isn't at some point (e.g the given Karaf
>>> website example, with all of the ETAs mentioned on it having been
>>> passed by some amount of up to a year). Now that I think about it, I
>>> also expect there are various points 2 weeks will have passed without
>>> any changes being made.
>>>
>>> Ah. I've only now noticed that the mail said 5.16.x every two weeks,
>>> but then further qualified it with the end of Feb. I'm assuming the
>>> 'two weeks' bit is the accurate bit, but perhaps it's not...I've just
>>> left what I already typed above as-is, I guess the points are mostly
>>> relevant either way.
>>>
>>> I would personally probably be considering retiring 5.15.x at this
>>> point, or at least deciding when it's likely to be, rather than aiming
>>> and advertising to do more releases of it. Doesn't it have mostly the
>>> same JDK support as 5.16.x, and I think a lot of the changes in 5.15.x
>>> were backported from master/5.16.x before its release and continue to
>>> be? How different are they actually, i.e what are the main things
>>> needing both be maintained at this point? Presumably it will drop away
>>> at some point before 5.16.x does, requiring people to then upgrade to
>>> e.g 5.16.x+ for fixes etc anyway. Perhaps specifically-so to 5.16.x if
>>> they are still using JDK8 then. After 15 releases across over 3.5
>>> years from 5.15.x (~3 months avg?), and this proposal of more frequent
>>> 5.16.x releases, now seems the appropriate point for considering this.
>>> Retiring it would allow concentrating available efforts only on 5.16.x
>>> and also getting 5.17.x(+) releases out. The former could become the
>>> 'last JDK 8+ supporting release', eventually being 'in maintenance',
>>> and the latter could become e.g. the 'JDK 11+ based mainstream
>>> release'. JDK 17 is also approaching with EA builds already available,
>>> so maintaining two seemingly similar but separate JDK8+ streams going
>>> forward feels increasingly odd. Trying to consolidate limited
>>> resources now on a single JDK8-using release series, that could then
>>> be maintained for some period, seems to me like it would be better for
>>> both the project and [JDK8] users in the longer term.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 16:58, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to propose something similar to what we do on Apache Karaf
>>> regarding releases.
>>>>
>>>> http://karaf.apache.org/download.html <
>>> http://karaf.apache.org/download.html>
>>>>
>>>> Basically, my proposal is:
>>>>
>>>> - flag any branch < 5.15.x (5.14.x, 5.13.x, …) as "Not Active"
>>>> - flag 5.15.x and 5.16.x as "Stable"
>>>> - flag 5.17.x as "Development"
>>>>
>>>> About the release cycle, I would like to propose:
>>>>
>>>> - 5.15.x release every quarter (meaning that 5.15.15 will be scheduled
>>> for March, 9th)
>>>> - 5.16.x release every two weeks (meaning that 5.16.2 will be scheduled
>>> for end of Feb)
>>>>
>>>> I would like to add details about releases schedule (and JDK version
>>> supported, etc) on
>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/download/ <
>>> http://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/download/>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>
>
