Accelerating the JDK LTS release cadence

Gil Tene gil at
Mon Sep 20 23:59:46 UTC 2021

Hi Mark/Volker/Martijn/All,

On behalf of Azul, I'd like to express our strong support for this proposal to
move to a more frequent LTS cadence in OpenJDK.

In our experience, most production environments tend to require a degree
of expected longevity and stability in the versions they actually adopt, with
a clear need for ongoing bugfixes & security updates but with no other
(or absolutely minimal) changes or enhancements forced on them unless
they expressly choose to more to later Java versions. Designated LTS
releases serve this purpose well, offering both stability and a predictable,
practical schedule that version change rollouts can be planned against,
and with plenty of overlap in continuing update timeframes to facilitate
non-urgent moves to newer versions.

Having LTS versions [predictably] appear on a more frequent basis is a
positive, and will likely accelerate the adoption of new Java features in
production environments going forward. It does come with an extra
maintenance burden for the community as a whole, but that burden is well
worth it in our opinion. As we do with OpenJDK 7u, 8u, 11u, 13u, and 15u,
Azul will continue to contribute to maintaining additional LTS releases in
the OpenJDK updates project, and is happy to help meet the added burden
that more frequent LTS releases may create.

— Gil.

> On Sep 20, 2021, at 3:47 PM, Martijn Verburg <Martijn.Verburg at> wrote:
> Hi, Mark/Volker/All,
> Microsoft believes in the end-user and operator benefits that modern Java brings. Therefore, we would also like to endorse the 2-year LTS proposal for builds of OpenJDK. Since most of the end-user ecosystem prefers to have the extra stability of an LTS, this is a great way to encourage them with their modernization efforts!
> Microsoft is willing to commit to helping maintain the various LTS updates projects as they move through their natural lifecycles.
> As a side note, .NET has a 2-year LTS cycle, so this makes double sense to us :-).
> Cheers,
> Martijn (and the MSFT Java Engineering Group)
> NOTE: My working day may not be your working day! Please don’t feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside of your normal working hours.
> ________________________________
> From: discuss <discuss-retn at> on behalf of Simonis, Volker <simonisv at>
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 21:07
> To: mark.reinhold at <mark.reinhold at>; discuss at <discuss at>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Accelerating the JDK LTS release cadence
> Hi Mark,
> On behalf of the Amazon Corretto team I’d like to express our support
> for the new JDK LTS release cadence proposal. We think this is the
> right step forward to keep the OpenJDK project vibrant and relevant
> with benefits for both developers and enterprises. The Corretto team
> will be happy to help out and take over new responsibilities in the
> OpenJDK Updates Project if endorsed by the OpenJDK community.
> Thank you and best regards,
> Volker & the Amazon Corretto team
> ________________________________________
> From: discuss <discuss-retn at> on behalf of mark.reinhold at <mark.reinhold at>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 16:30
> To: discuss at
> Subject: Accelerating the JDK LTS release cadence
> Over on my blog today I’ve proposed shifting the JDK LTS release cadence
> from three years to two years:
> The LTS release following JDK 17 would thus be JDK 21 (in 2023), rather
> than JDK 23 (in 2024).
> This change would, if accepted, have no effect on the main-line feature
> releases developed in the JDK Project [1].  Every such release is
> intended to be stable and ready for production use, whether it’s an LTS
> release or not [2].
> This change would, however, affect the update releases produced in the
> JDK Updates Project [3].  That Project would have to take on a new LTS
> release line every two years rather than three, which would be more work,
> and also decide for how long to maintain each line.
> This change would also affect vendors who offer paid support for LTS
> releases, whether or not they participate in the JDK Updates Project.
> Given the potential to accelerate the entire Java ecosystem, however,
> in my view the additional work would be well justified.
> Comments?  Questions?
> - Mark
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> Amazon Development Center Germany GmbH
> Krausenstr. 38
> 10117 Berlin
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Christian Schlaeger, Jonathan Weiss
> Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg unter HRB 149173 B
> Sitz: Berlin
> Ust-ID: DE 289 237 879

More information about the discuss mailing list