Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Jakarta EE 9 Release Landing Page --

It would certainly be a good option for it to go there.

The WG is not directly tied to a TLP, there’s a MP WG now, but the project is still a single project under Technology with many different repositories which makes it a little messy. Of course other projects like Vert.x also got their own GH organization, so there’s more than one answer to clean up the MP repositories.


As for and quite frankly, there is a good reason for that and that’s the Jakarta EE specs are IP that’s Copyright (c) 2019, 2020 Eclipse Foundation, while the projects under EE4J are Copyright the subsequent committer companies or individual committers.


So while there are a few API projects with spec text and modules there which may need some cleaning up or (most of it should be there now as of Jakarta EE 9 anyway) pruning, I am not convinced even the API repositories make sense under the Jakarta EE organization.




Von: Amelia Eiras
Gesendet: Samstag, 14. November 2020 00:41
An: Jakarta EE community discussions
Betreff: Re: [] Jakarta EE 9 Release Landing Page --


Hola Werner, 


My email has nothing to do with MicroProfile. MPWG is a standalone project under the foundation that has nothing to do with the EE4J's success or its future endeavors. 





There is a major clean-up that needs to happen in the Jakarta EE ecosystem INFRA. We need to start somewhere and avoid more delays.


Discussion matters.  The skeleton on how to execute the clean-up means we likely make smaller talks possible and traceable via the open tools that welcome everyone to help.  



On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:20 PM Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Too much information spread across too many different lists at the same time.


Not sure, where the 31 comes from, but I also found 31 by coincidence with the term "api" under EE4J;

That list is too long because the "glassfish-spec-version-maven-plugin" and most likely "glassfish-ha" have nothing to do with a Jakarta EE spec or API and won't make sense to migrate anywhere else.

Only the API projects could under some circumstances be seen as better placed with the specs under Jakarta EE.


Everything else like implementation projects (Glassfish, Soteria, Krazo, etc.) shall remain there, I don't see any sense mixing the spec and API with implementations or examples.


If one goal was to make room for Microprofile joining EE4J instead of "Eclipse Technology" that I think would make a lot more sense ;-)






On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 9:56 PM Amelia Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Much work is being done on the creation of the Jakarta EE 9 Release landing page. The technical work on the Jakarta EE 9 release was completed on Nov. 6th, yeayy! 

The facts listed on the page relevant to the release are currently incorrect and need our attention. 



Topic 1: Jakarta EE Repo - WIP


Last June 2019, the Jakarta EE working group discussed and voted to import the Jakarta EE Repo all the Specs relevant to Jakarta EE from the EE4J repository. 


What does it take to get the task completed? 

Can we prioritize it as a crucial item for the Jakarta EE 9.1 release? 

Can we double check the 60 Repo's mentioned above and make sure to not include stuff from the EE4J parent umbrella? 


Topic 2: Jakarta EE projects

Currently counted 31; however, the 9 release contains 35 specifications.

Do we also include the 10 repos already allocated in the Jakarta EE repo? If yes, then the number increases to 45.  

Topic 3: Jakarta EE Mailing lists and its link to EE4J

  • Jakarta EE Mailing Lists that helped create this landing page: currently contains 40 forums. Naming adjustments are needed.  How do we submit such feedback? 
  • Does a git issue work? Or PRs? How can we help adjust what currently is?
  • The removal of many EE4J mailing lists from the Jakarta EE mailing lists matters. 
  • EE4J must become its own independent umbrella parent with its own website, etc., to scale and welcome other projects to join the space.   
  • The repo specifications migrations need to help with a naming convention and update on the mailing lists. 

Topic 3: What items should be a part of the Release 9 page?

Should the Jakarta EE 9 release page focus solely on the release's work? Or should summarize the entire project? 


The current PR we are about to merge about highlighting the Contributors via Contributors Cards focuses only on the contributors' activity from work completed from Oct 1st, 2019 to Dec 8th, 2020.  


As such, I recommend, the 9 page focus only on the release work. Ideally, each release will have its own landing page. To iterate such a focus is recommended to be applied to future releases.  


Happy wknd everyone, 

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit


Back to the top