Yup, that sounds good. Regards JB
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:06 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
