To further clarify... The website indicates that there are currently 3 "Stable - Supported" series - 6.1.x, 5.19.x, and 5.18.x. There is also 6.2.x which is "In Dev." Would this new policy result in potentially 4 total releases per month?
Justin On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:42 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > I had a chat with Art, and he made me realize that this thread is not > super clear, both in terms of "why" and "how". > > So, to summarize the why, the intentions for a "best effort monthly > release cadence" are: > 1. "More predictable" releases cycle for our users, with a high level > expected release content. > 2. Faster features/fixes shipping for our contributors (and us ;) ). > At a high level, the goal is to even more grow our community (users > and contributors). > > I'm volunteering to start doing "best effort monthly" releases unless > there is any concern (starting in January). > > Regards > JB > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 5:41 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > It's up to the projects to decide their release frequency (so no > > guideline or rule at foundation level). > > > > My proposal (and the purpose) is to have a predictable release cycle > > for the users and ship fixes/updates faster. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:36 PM Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Are there guidelines or rules around release frequency? If so, I'm > not > > > aware - even when I did some releases. > > > > > > Are there any real concerns we want to address here? > > > > > > Art > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 1:07 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 on this approach. I think it may be clarified like this: > > > > > > > > “Best effort” once-per-month release for dependency updates at a > minimum > > > > for active LTS release steams. > > > > > > > > Example: v6.2.1 & v5.19.7, then v6.2.2, v5.19.8, etc. > > > > > > > > Then minor and major releases as needed or in the monthly release > window > > > > as it works out. > > > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > On Nov 11, 2025, at 11:24 AM, Christopher Shannon < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Best effort is fine with me in that case. As long as it's not super > > > > > "strict", monthly works if we have stuff ready to go. > > > > > > > > > > Dependabot would be nice, it would make the updates easier to have > it > > > > more > > > > > automated if possible. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Also, something I'm proposing is to join the ATR initiative. > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards > > > > >> JB > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 5:53 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected]> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hi Chris, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Sorry I was not clear in my previous message: the intent is not > to > > > > >>> have something strict but more as "best effort". If we don't > have any > > > > >>> change, no need to release. But as soon as we have something, we > can > > > > >>> ship asap. > > > > >>> So, I think we are on the same page ;) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> About the dependency updates, I was thinking about > > > > >>> dependabot/renovatebot, but it's a separate discussion I will > start :) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regards > > > > >>> JB > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 5:37 PM Christopher Shannon > > > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Hi Jb, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> In general, releasing more frequently is definitely good, and > I'm not > > > > >>>> against releasing monthly if there is stuff to release, but I'm > not > > > > >> really > > > > >>>> in favor of having any kind of super fixed release schedule > because a > > > > >> lot > > > > >>>> of issues come up from it and being flexible is important so i > think > > > > we > > > > >>>> might want to be a little be less rigid. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> 1. A guaranteed monthly release means something could go out > that > > > > >> has > > > > >>>> very little changes. With ActiveMQ not a ton of changes happen > > > > >> every month > > > > >>>> so many times there's not much to release and simple > dependency > > > > >> updates and > > > > >>>> minor fixes can be done in minor releases instead. > > > > >>>> 2. You can get into the opposite situation where stuff is > ready to > > > > >> be > > > > >>>> released but we are stuck waiting for the release time. (this > is > > > > >> not really > > > > >>>> a big deal for a month long cadence but for longer it is) > > > > >>>> 3. Usually this causes more problems because dates get > missed. This > > > > >> is > > > > >>>> all volunteer work after all, so I've seen a lot of situations > > > > >> where the > > > > >>>> promised releases never go out on time. For Kafka for > example, they > > > > >> have a > > > > >>>> release schedule and it is almost never on time. The releases > > > > >> always go out > > > > >>>> later because of any number of delays. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I think we can certainly encourage faster releases but maybe be > a bit > > > > >> more > > > > >>>> flexible, something like: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> - We can try and release monthly if there are things ready to > go > > > > >> out, > > > > >>>> but can be flexible and skip a month or 2 (nothing important > to > > > > >> release, > > > > >>>> other issues come up,etc). > > > > >>>> - We can plan to release a major version at least once a > quarter > > > > >> (ie. > > > > >>>> 6.3.0 or 6.4.0) if we skipped months > > > > >>>> - If we don't release a major update for that month we can > always at > > > > >>>> least do a minor update ie 6.3.1 > > > > >>>> - Release faster if something important is needed (this is > probably > > > > >>>> unlikely) is fine too > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Chris > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:08 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > > [email protected] > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Hi folks, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> In order to ship changes faster (I'm thinking of the > discussion about > > > > >>>>> VirtualThread in Classic 6.2.0 for instance), and to have a > > > > >>>>> "predictable" cycle for our users, I would like to propose a > monthly > > > > >>>>> release pace for ActiveMQ Classic. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> For instance, it means that 6.3.0 can be released in December, > 6.4.0 > > > > >>>>> in January, etc. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> The purpose is also to encourage contributors as their > contributions > > > > >>>>> will be included in releases faster. > > > > >>>>> I also think that it would be a good way to be up to date with > > > > >>>>> dependencies (I'm thinking of the discussion about a bunch of > Jira > > > > >>>>> regarding dependency updates in Classic 6.2.0). > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Thoughts? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Regards > > > > >>>>> JB > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >>>>> For further information, visit: > https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >> For further information, visit: > https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > >
