| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] TCK documentation requirements |
Wayne, isn't that repo supposed to appear on the jakarta.ee web site somewhere?
Wayne, isn't that repo supposed to appear on the jakarta.ee web site somewhere?
Scott Stark wrote on 7/25/19 7:48 PM:
Note we have put the ops and tck guides into the https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee repo thanks to the PR from Alasdair.
On Jul 25, 2019, at 6:46 PM, Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1. I would say the TCK UG should give the exact link where to file issues. Perhaps the jakarta.ee spec root page should list the issue tracker for each type of issue.
2. Yes, I think the EFTL covers this well enough.
3. Certainly there is no reason to be specifying a particular readme format. I think we should have a common starting point for navigating how one would navigate all of the issues related to the TCK.
On Jul 25, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.