Hey JB- +1 I agree, formalizing and communicating LTS is important to users.
However, I think we should have a *released* branch that we feel is solid to base LTS off of vs declaring a future unreleased branch as a LTS release. -Matt > On Dec 21, 2023, at 3:29 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > Hi François, > > We discussed LTS/EOA but without commitment yet. > > The thing we agreed on is to maintain 3 branches active (so 6.0.x, > 5.18.x, 5.17.x right now). The same as we do in Apache Karaf > basically. I would consider it a kind of informal LTS :) > If we need to have a concrete LTS plan, then 5.18.x would be LTS but not > 6.0.x. > > In terms of roadmap, we have basically: > - 6.1.x plan to include new JMS features support > - 6.x (6.2.x, 6.3.x, etc) will follow the same path with new JMS > features support > - 7.x will be a big milestone because we plan to remove Spring > (supporting new configuration format like activemq,xml, activemq,yaml, > activemq.json, etc), add new tools, etc > > If there are no objections, I can start a formal vote for LTS policy > and if the vote passes I can update the website. > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 8:04 AM Francois Papon > <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Now that the current release is on 6.x, I am searching for LTS >> informations about the 5.x version but I cannot find it on the website. >> >> Is there some info about this topic? >> >> regards, >> >> François >>
