[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] TCK documentation requirements
|
One more change I forgot...
https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/pull/5
Bill Shannon wrote on 7/26/19 1:47 PM:
> Pull Request created based on decisions in today's meeting, please review:
> https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/pull/4
>
> Bill Shannon wrote on 7/25/19 2:48 PM:
>> I have some questions based on our TCK Process document.
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et3LtK-2SUuAoOV56t8R8fKnRWhbWqg9SLgm-VhbDPY/edit
>>
>> I'd like to resolve these issues in tomorrow's meeting, if not before.
>>
>>
>> Our TCK Process document says that the TCK UG MUST contain:
>>
>>> - Where to file challenges and bug reports
>>
>> The TCK UG template currently says:
>>
>>> Challenges should be filed via the {TechnologyFullName} specification
>>> project???s issue tracker ...
>>
>> It seems that we've been inconsistent on which issue tracker to use for what.
>> Do we really want certification requests filed against the TCK issue tracker
>> but challenges filed against the specification issue tracker?
>>
>> Do we need to add an exact URL to the issue tracker, or is the above sufficient?
>>
>> Also, the TCK UG doesn't say anything specific about where to file bug reports.
>> I would hope that it's obvious that bug reports against the TCK should be filed
>> in the TCK issue tracker. Can we amend the TCK Process document requirement
>> to remove "and bug reports"?
>>
>>
>> The TCK Process document also requires that the TCK UG contain:
>>
>>> - A statement that the Certification of Compatibility process must be followed
>>> before a claim of compatibility can be made.
>>
>> There's currently nothing of this sort in the TCK UG. I'd like to believe this
>> is clear in the EFTL, which says:
>>
>>> 4. Before any claim of compatibility (or any similar claim suggesting
>>> compatibility) is made based on the TCK, the testing party must:
>>>
>>> a. use the TCK to demonstrate that the Product fully and
>>> completely meets and satisfies all requirements of the TCK;
>>>
>>> b. make TCK test results showing full and complete satisfaction of
>>> all requirements of the TCK publicly available on the testing
>>> party's website and send a link to such test results to Eclipse
>>> at [tck@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:tck@xxxxxxxxxxx); and
>>>
>>> c. comply with any requirements stated in the Specification with
>>> regard to subsetting, supersetting, modifying or extending the
>>> Specification in any Product claimed to be compatible with the
>>> Specification.
>>
>> Can we remove the above requirement from the TCK Process document and rely
>> on the EFTL?
>>
>>
>> Finally, the TCK Process document requires:
>>
>>> - A top-level README.md document pointing to each of the preceding documents.
>>
>> Currently many, but not all, TCKs include a README.html that links to the
>> other documents.
>>
>> Can we change the TCK Process document to *not* require a markdown file?
>>
>> Do we need to add README files of some sort to all the TCKs?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
