[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Point before proceeding with changes
|
Let's put terms aside, because I think we quickly make ourselves dizzy with chicken/egg.
Here's the information we require from people who claim to have passed the TCK:
- Product Name, Version and download URL (if applicable)
- Implementation runtime Version(s) tested
- Java runtime used to run the implementation
- Summary of the information for the test environment, operating system, cloud, ...
- Specification Name, Version and download URL
- TCK Version, SHA-256 fingerprint and download URL
- A statement attesting that all TCK requirements have been met, including any compatibility rules
Is there anything here that is particularly onerous to require of the first claim?
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Jul 24, 2019, at 10:22 AM, Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
