> So, the "best effort monthly" cadence is only for the latest active branch.
I think there's some confusion on this point given Matt's earlier comment about having "once-per-month release for dependency updates at a minimum for active LTS release steams." Justin On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 1:50 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > >> > >
