[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Point before proceeding with changes
|
I assume that in most cases the Compatible Implementation that's part of
a specification approval will also want to be a certified compatible
implementation, so leveraging the certification process as part of the
specification approval makes sense.
I do want to see the details of how this will work to make sure we've addressed
all the chicken/egg issues.
Scott Stark wrote on 7/24/19 10:22 AM:
> So to be clear, the addition of a request for certification as a demonstration of the existence of a compatible implementation is not a requirement that I can see in our current process or guides. We would not have voted for a process that requires validation via certified vs compatible implementations. There is nothing wrong with using an open source project that passes the TCK that has no desire to become a certified implementation. Certification is more aligned with supported products that have release schedules that lag their upstream counterparts.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
