My concern isn't so much with updating the website upon a release. As you note, we already do that.
My concern is with the other updates that will inevitably be needed when the schedule slips for whatever reason. If we just stick to a general release cadence none of that will be necessary. Regarding release details, we can leverage the "Releases" page [1] [2] already present in Jira. Folks can click on any release and see what was or will be in it. It won't be as user friendly as a curated list, but it also requires zero effort which is a big win in my opinion. Justin [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQ?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ARTEMIS?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 12:12 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > I think it’s not a huge effort compare to what we already do at each > release (updating the website). > > For instance, for Karaf, it’s pretty quick to update website and release > schedule at each release cycle. > > I already proposed regular release cycle in the past (as best effort). > > I would agree with both: regular release cycle (quarterly) + some details > (at least for “major” releases) on website. > > Regards > JB > > > Le 1 févr. 2022 à 18:32, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> a écrit : > > > > Generally speaking, I'm against anything that will require more > maintenance > > of the website. History indicates that the community is somewhat weak in > > this area. > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell we've never > consistently > > scheduled releases. Also, given the Apache Way with the release voting > > process we can only be precise about when a release will go up for a > vote. > > There's no way to actually guarantee a release date. Why not have > > consistent, time-boxed (e.g. quarterly) releases? That would solve a > > handful of problems: > > > > - users could depend on a general cadence for releases > > - the website could simply outline the release cadence which would > > alleviate the need for maintenance > > - it would reduce the communication necessary to coordinate a release; a > > release manager could simply step up and perform the release when the > time > > comes > > > > Obviously we can still have "ad hoc" releases as necessary (e.g. due to a > > security issue). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Justin > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 6:47 AM Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > > > >> Would it be worth the effort to create and then maintain a page that > lists > >> the planned timeline of upcoming releases for both 5.x and Artemis? > There > >> have been a lot of questions about upcoming plans in the wake of the > Log4J > >> CVE, but even during normal times we get occasional questions here about > >> upcoming plans, and that's just the users who bother to sign up for the > >> mailing list so there could well be more who look for that info but > don't > >> post to ask. > >> > >> The downside is that once we create a page for that content we'll have > to > >> be diligent about updating it (including publishing updates when > something > >> slides back a bit), otherwise what's the point. I'm not sure if the > folks > >> who would have to do the ongoing work on this think it's worth the > effort, > >> but I wanted to throw it out for consideration. > >> > >> Tim > >> > >
