According to the JCP (2.11.6), in the
context of a Maintenance Review:
Changes
appropriate for a Maintenance Release include
bug-fixes, clarifications of the Specification,
changes to the implementation of existing APIs,
and implementation-specific enhancements. Changes
introduced in Maintenance Releases – for example,
modifications to existing APIs or the addition of
new APIs - must not break binary compatibility as
defined by the Java Language Specification.
The document also describes the role of
Maintenance Lead and specific details around
releases.
Service Releases, as presented in the EFSP, are
considered "Bug Fix" releases. The definition of
Service Release and Bug-fix are not formalized
beyond a simple qualification that Service
Releases contain "no significant changes or
additions over the base Release". In the absence
of any formal definition of what constitutes a significant
change or addition, the definition is left to the
Project Leadership Chain.
I believe that we can reasonable ask the PMC to
assert that the sorts of changes that are
acceptable in a JCP Maintenance Release are also
acceptable in an EDP/EFSP Service Release (though,
I'm not quite sure what is intended by
"implementation-specific enhancements").
Regarding approvals, the EFSP has this to say
about Service Releases:
Service
Releases (bug fixes) for a Specification Version
that has engaged in a successful Release Review do
not require any further Reviews, but must be
approved by a Super-majority vote of the
Specification Committee.
How a vote is run, the materials that must be
delivered to the Specification Committee in
advance of a vote, timing considerations, etc. may
be formalized in the implementation of the
process.
The one possible oversight that I can see is
that the EFSP specifically states that:
With the
successful completion of a Release Review,
including approval of the Specification Committee
by a Super-majority vote, a Specification Version
is Ratified and the associated artifacts can be
promoted and distributed by the Specification
Committee as a Final Specification.
This does not make allowances for Service
Releases. I believe that this can be corrected by
removing the reference to the Release review and
going with something like this:
With the
<strike>successful completion of a Release
Review, including</strike> approval of the
Specification Committee by a Super-majority vote,
a Specification Version is Ratified and the
associated artifacts can be promoted and
distributed by the Specification Committee as a
Final Specification.
And, perhaps, formalize that the output of a
Service Release is also a Specification Version.
What am I missing?
Thanks,
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.