Hi Justin, So, the "best effort monthly" cadence is only for the latest active branch. The other branches will stay "on demand".
Regards JB On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 6:00 PM Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
