Jan,
As I mentioned in one my earlier replies, I would just go ahead and
create a Release Record for the 2.30 release and schedule a review.
Yes, it's past your official release, but we're within the
"forgiveness range". :-)
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jersey Unless there is
something you are going to fix, I see no reason for a 2.30.1 release
just to satisfy the process.
The tyrus page is here:
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.tyrus According to this,
the last review was in Dec 2018. Thus, a new release of Tyrus should
go through a review as well.
Hope this helps.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From: Jan Supol <jan.supol@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 01/15/2020 06:34
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ee4j-pmc] Release process
Sent by: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jersey 2.30 has been released and it is available in maven central.
Jersey 2.30 is a service release meaning it does not break any backward
compatibility. It provides some additional functionality, however. The
last release review was in November 2018.
The truth is I was not aware about the one year period and I did not
check the release process. If the release review is needed, we can
create a new Jersey 2.30.1 release and go through the release review
with that one.
We also plan to release a new version of Tyrus. It contains mostly bug
fixes, but there is a new configuration option.
Please let us know whether we need release review for Jersey and Tyrus.
Thanks,
Jan
On 15.01.2020 8:10, Bill Shannon wrote:
> I believe Jersey 2.30 falls into this clause:
>
>> Further, a review is not required for release if the project has
>> engaged in a successful release review within a year of the release
date.
>
>
> Markus KARG wrote on 1/14/20 9:49 PM:
>>
>> But is Jersey 2.30 really just a bug fix release? I understood it
>> also contains new features, according to SemVer.
>>
>> -Markus
>>
>> *Von:*ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *Im Auftrag von *EMO EMO
>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 14. Januar 2020 23:02
>> *An:* EE4J PMC Discussions
>> *Betreff:* Re: [ee4j-pmc] Release process
>>
>> Release reviews are not required for service (bug fix only) releases.
>>
>> Further, a review is not required for release if the project has
>> engaged in a successful release review within a year of the release
date.
>>
>> The rules are slightly different for specification projects which
>> require ballot approval from the specification committee for all
>> releases. But that doesn't apply to Eclipse Jersey.
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 3:11 PM Dmitry Kornilov
>> <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> Jersey 2.30 is a service release. It’s our mistake to not going
>> through the review process. Id it fine if we submit a review for
>> already released project? If not, what shall we do?
>>
>> - Dmitry
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2020, at 15:56, Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Christian,
>> The Project Handbook
>> <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#release>indicates
>> that a successful release review allows a project to distribute
>> new major or minor releases for up to one year:
>>
>> "A project team may declare official major or minor releases and
>> distribute associated products for up to one year following a
>> successful /release or progress review/
>> <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#release-review>.
>> Reviews are not required for bug-fix/service releases."
>>
>> So, based on that, the Jersey project was okay with their 2.29
>> and 2.29.1 releases, but the 2.30 release needs to have a
>> successful release review. The project seems to be in a state of
>> flux since the 2.30 release is not officially marked as a public
>> release yet in github...
>> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jersey/releases. There is a tag
>> for it, but not a release...
>>
>> Bottom line, Christian, I think your understanding is correct and
>> Jersey needs to tidy things up a bit. We do have to remember
>> that the Eclispe processes are new to most of us, so there will
>> be some hiccups along the way while we all get our feet wet.
Thanks!
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Kevin Sutter
>> STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
>> e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Twitter: @kwsutter
>> phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> To: EE4J PMC Discussions <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> Cc: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> Date: 01/13/2020 06:19
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ee4j-pmc] Release process
>> Sent by: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I am not an expert on the process so I could be wrong but my
>> understanding is that once a project has a successful release
>> review it can make further releases for a year without a formal
>> review. I assume a release record is still required though but
>> Wayne or Ivar can correct me.
>>
>> I just googled and this blog seems to also say the same
>>
https://blogs.eclipse.org/post/wayne-beaton/progress-and-release-reviews
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> *From:*ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> <ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>> *On Behalf Of *Christian
>> Kaltepoth*
>> Sent:* 12 January 2020 11:30*
>> To:* EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; EE4J PMC Discussions
>> <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>*
>> Subject:* [ee4j-pmc] Release process
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm currently working on the first Eclipse Krazo release. As this
>> is our first release under the umbrella of the EE4J project, I
>> would like to ask a few questions about the process, especially
>> regarding release reviews.
>>
>> I just checked the project site
>> <https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jersey/>of Eclipse
>> Jersey, because I was interested to see how other projects are
>> doing it. Eclipse Jersey published versions like 2.28, 2.29 or
>> 2.29.1. So it looks like they are following the "major.minor" and
>> "major.minor.patch" versioning scheme. The Eclipse Project
>> Handbook states:
>>
>> All major and minor releases require a review. Service releases
>> [...] do not require a review.
>>
>> There was a release review for the 2.28 release. That's fine. But
>> there wasn't one for the 2.29 release. But isn't this required
>> for a non-service release? There is also only an IP Log for 2.28
>> <https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19586>but not
>> for 2.29.
>>
>> Also, Eclipse Jersey released 2.30 a few days ago and the release
>> is already available in Maven Central
>>
<https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/glassfish/jersey/core/jersey-common/2.30/>.
>> However, there isn't any entry for 2.30 in the "Latest Releases"
>> table on the Jersey project site
>> <https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jersey>. So it looks
>> like there isn't any release plan and also no release review for
>> 2.30.
>>
>> Am I missing something here?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>>
>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>
>> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>>
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>
>> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ee4j-pmc mailing list
>> ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ee4j-pmc mailing list
>> ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ee4j-pmc mailing list
>> ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> The Eclipse Management Organization
>> Eclipse Foundation
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ee4j-pmc mailing list
>> ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ee4j-pmc mailing list
> ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
