Yes it makes sense to announce 5.15.15 as the last planned 5.15.x release as discussed over the last few months. It should also be noted on the website, i.e download page and 5.15.15 release page. I have just made a change to do that in https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/commit/9d0008bb0676f421544c30db486dc6333ae7ae77. It would probably have made most sense to prepare all this when it was actually released last week and before people had already started getting it.
I also removed the release page redirects which should have been dropped for new releases, i.e 5.15.15 and 5.16.2, as the pages never existed at the old locations being redirected from for earlier releases to preserve links (change made in https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/commit/b341b2dec51dc547a7b9e903aa7ed8bade62db99). Be sure to use the current release page links in your announcements, i.e: https://activemq.apache.org/activemq-5015015-release https://activemq.apache.org/activemq-5016002-release Although I've now added the note on the download page, it should probably instead be decided when 5.15.x is going to be removed from it. If there isnt a planned followup and folks are already encouraged to use the newer stream releases are intended for (with a further newer stream also on the way), it isnt really all that 'current' anymore and should probably drop off that main page to properly convey that. Perhaps a month for some overlap/notice, given the stream has been around for a while? Robbie On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 06:21, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Now that we released 5.16.2 and 5.15.15 (and website updated), I would like > to send the announcement and blog about these releases. > > I would like to announce 5.15.15 as the "last" release on 5.15.x series. > > NB: I don’t use EOL or strong last release, because it doesn’t exist from > Apache standpoint, anyone can propose a new release on any branch, even very > old, if he wants. > > The purpose is to be "formal", and see if someone disagree (and give a chance > to speak and throw an objection) before sending the announcement. > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB
