Doing more frequent releases sounds good, and to more of a schedule also. Saying what JDK etc a release uses/supports on the site is also good. We aren't allowed to direct everyday users to unreleased software as a matter of policy, so I would say that 5.17.x shouldnt be mentioned until released though.
On the releases, one issue I see with the proposal would be the frequency. Are folks actually able to handle a two week cadance, as recent years/releases don't really seem to support that? It took 6 months to do 5.16.1. It is already heading for 2 weeks since the 5.16.1 vote closed and despite apparently containing an announced security fix the release still isn't even on the website yet (aside, I see the download page is also currently broken once more, as the release was again prematurely deleted from the mirrors). This gap seems a repeating issue, plus half of the recent releases are also never announced, sometimes even after a nudge. Advertising expectations of a release every 2 weeks doesn't currently seem remotely sustainable. I would propose a more balanced target being mentioned than that, of say at least a month but probably a good bit more. Its always possible to over-deliver occasionally if needed/possible. I'd also suggest the website only mention proposed frequencies rather than specific dates, avoiding needing them to be updated as frequently and often looking stale once it inevitably isn't at some point (e.g the given Karaf website example, with all of the ETAs mentioned on it having been passed by some amount of up to a year). Now that I think about it, I also expect there are various points 2 weeks will have passed without any changes being made. Ah. I've only now noticed that the mail said 5.16.x every two weeks, but then further qualified it with the end of Feb. I'm assuming the 'two weeks' bit is the accurate bit, but perhaps it's not...I've just left what I already typed above as-is, I guess the points are mostly relevant either way. I would personally probably be considering retiring 5.15.x at this point, or at least deciding when it's likely to be, rather than aiming and advertising to do more releases of it. Doesn't it have mostly the same JDK support as 5.16.x, and I think a lot of the changes in 5.15.x were backported from master/5.16.x before its release and continue to be? How different are they actually, i.e what are the main things needing both be maintained at this point? Presumably it will drop away at some point before 5.16.x does, requiring people to then upgrade to e.g 5.16.x+ for fixes etc anyway. Perhaps specifically-so to 5.16.x if they are still using JDK8 then. After 15 releases across over 3.5 years from 5.15.x (~3 months avg?), and this proposal of more frequent 5.16.x releases, now seems the appropriate point for considering this. Retiring it would allow concentrating available efforts only on 5.16.x and also getting 5.17.x(+) releases out. The former could become the 'last JDK 8+ supporting release', eventually being 'in maintenance', and the latter could become e.g. the 'JDK 11+ based mainstream release'. JDK 17 is also approaching with EA builds already available, so maintaining two seemingly similar but separate JDK8+ streams going forward feels increasingly odd. Trying to consolidate limited resources now on a single JDK8-using release series, that could then be maintained for some period, seems to me like it would be better for both the project and [JDK8] users in the longer term. On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 16:58, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I would like to propose something similar to what we do on Apache Karaf > regarding releases. > > http://karaf.apache.org/download.html <http://karaf.apache.org/download.html> > > Basically, my proposal is: > > - flag any branch < 5.15.x (5.14.x, 5.13.x, …) as "Not Active" > - flag 5.15.x and 5.16.x as "Stable" > - flag 5.17.x as "Development" > > About the release cycle, I would like to propose: > > - 5.15.x release every quarter (meaning that 5.15.15 will be scheduled for > March, 9th) > - 5.16.x release every two weeks (meaning that 5.16.2 will be scheduled for > end of Feb) > > I would like to add details about releases schedule (and JDK version > supported, etc) on > > http://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/download/ > <http://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/download/> > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB
