Hi Matt, I think it's what I proposed: 5.18.x should be our LTS branch currently.
Regards JB On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 3:19 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > >> >
