Yep, LTS is an indicator for community support. Similar to Spring, OpenJDK,
etc.
> On Dec 23, 2023, at 1:36 PM, Francois Papon
> wrote:
>
> Hi Clebert,
>
> My concern was about the maintainability of the community for upgrading the
> stack for mainly critical issues, cve...but not for
Hi Clebert,
My concern was about the maintainability of the community for upgrading
the stack for mainly critical issues, cve...but not for improvement.
I was thinking about the community support but not the companies support.
regards,
François
On 21/12/2023 22:09, Clebert Suconic wrote:
I think for a while we will need to support at least the latest 5.x and
latest 6.x branches. There are going to be people that can't move to
Jakarta for a while still.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 4:10 PM Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> The term LTS implies support though. (Long Term *SUPPORT*). I would be
The term LTS implies support though. (Long Term *SUPPORT*). I would be
careful with that terminology.
there are a few companies offering support to ActiveMQ.
The terminology used here was more an overload to a stable branch, or
it was actually meant on the "support" side?
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023
Hi Matt,
I think it's what I proposed: 5.18.x should be our LTS branch currently.
Regards
JB
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 3:19 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> Hey JB-
>
> +1 I agree, formalizing and communicating LTS is important to users.
>
> However, I think we should have a *released* branch that
Hey JB-
+1 I agree, formalizing and communicating LTS is important to users.
However, I think we should have a *released* branch that we feel is solid to
base LTS off of vs declaring a future unreleased branch as a LTS release.
-Matt
> On Dec 21, 2023, at 3:29 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Hi JB,
LGTM, +1!
regards,
François
On 21/12/2023 10:29, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi François,
We discussed LTS/EOA but without commitment yet.
The thing we agreed on is to maintain 3 branches active (so 6.0.x,
5.18.x, 5.17.x right now). The same as we do in Apache Karaf
basically. I
Hi François,
We discussed LTS/EOA but without commitment yet.
The thing we agreed on is to maintain 3 branches active (so 6.0.x,
5.18.x, 5.17.x right now). The same as we do in Apache Karaf
basically. I would consider it a kind of informal LTS :)
If we need to have a concrete LTS plan, then
Hi Matt,
As I understand there is no LTS planned because the problem is the 3rd
party dependencies EOL and I can understand that :)
So the 5.x will not be LTS.
I'm not looking for a specific combo, however I think it could be nice
if the base stack could be fully ASF like openwebbean vs
Hi François-
I don’t think there has been any discussion about tagging LTS on releases.
v6.0.x might not even by LTS, since we are going to be adding add’l JMS 2.0
impls in v6.1.0 shortly.
The full stack needs to be aligned for LTS and it’s quite difficult, since
Spring is EOL 5.x open source
Hi all,
Now that the current release is on 6.x, I am searching for LTS
informations about the 5.x version but I cannot find it on the website.
Is there some info about this topic?
regards,
François
11 matches
Mail list logo
