Yep, LTS is an indicator for community support. Similar to Spring, OpenJDK, etc.
> On Dec 23, 2023, at 1:36 PM, Francois Papon <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> > wrote: > > Hi Clebert, > > My concern was about the maintainability of the community for upgrading the > stack for mainly critical issues, cve...but not for improvement. > > I was thinking about the community support but not the companies support. > > regards, > > François > > On 21/12/2023 22:09, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> The term LTS implies support though. (Long Term *SUPPORT*). I would be >> careful with that terminology. >> >> there are a few companies offering support to ActiveMQ. >> >> >> The terminology used here was more an overload to a stable branch, or >> it was actually meant on the "support" side? >> >> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 9:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >>> 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 >>>>>> >> >>
