Thanks, Kevin, that was helpful.
Have you taken the next step and formed an opinion on what you think
we should or should not require for the Jakarta EE TCK process?
I hope everyone remembers that one of our main goals here is to
create a specification (including TCK) process that is acceptable to
the MicroProfile community so that MicroProfile becomes part of EE4J
and Jakarta EE. If what we end up with is (e.g.) too heavyweight
for MicroProfile to use, we will have failed.
Kevin Sutter wrote on 12/17/18 02:20
PM:
Hi,
To follow David's lead, I have
created
a document for our MicroProfile TCK Process. While the Java EE
TCK
process is at one end of the pendulum swing, the MicroProfile
TCK process
might be nearer the other end. But, so far, it's been working
for
us... Since many of you are probably not familiar with the
process
we've been using, I thought I would try documenting it. I've
given
everybody that had access rights to David's document the same
rights on
this document. Comments and Suggestions would be welcome! I'm
not sure of the agenda for this week's meeting, but I'd be
willing to walk
people through it whenever it makes the agenda. Thanks.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BvdDSScDIhmUCtSJKfpHATUXrqqw2aaJ3c7xI4VWlhg/edit#heading=h.i6oqwqcg54z3
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
|
