Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Plan B Deliverable for JakartaOne and OC

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,
If we were only
talking about the Specs, then I would agree with you.  But, since
we're also talking about the API, the TCK, and a Compatible Implementation,
then we need to ensure that the proper dependencies are in place for building
and testing these artifacts.  An easy example that I personally ran
into...  For the Management API, I accidentally entered the wrong
version for the ejb-api.  That could have slipped through all of the
visual checks we're doing.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:
       "Steve
Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       08/07/2019
10:38 AM
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Plan B Deliverable for JakartaOne  
     and        OC1?
Sent
by:        jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

I may be being a bit dumb but why do specs need to wait to be approved based on the availability of downstream specs being approved given that at this point in time nothing is changing and most specs are boilerplate? Surely as long as all other api artifacts are staged and therefore the correct version be referenced in the pom dependencies for the api jar then we can proceed? I’m sure I am missing something here.

 

Steve

 

From:jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Kevin Sutter
Sent: 06 August 2019 22:32
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Plan B Deliverable for JakartaOne and OC1?

 

Hi,
I know we're all busy trying to be ready by JakartaOne and OC1.  I believe that we have to announce *something* significant at JakartaOne and/or OC1, or we will have another nail in our Jakarta EE coffin...  So, what's our Plan B?

What about if we would limit our focus to just Jakarta EE 8 Web Profile?  That would significantly decrease the number of required Specifications and associated artifacts to review.  Consider all of the PRs, Specs, APIs, Javadocs, CIs, TCKs, Certification Requests, and I'm probably forgetting something...  And, we would still be delivering a usable subset of functionality.  With the goal of delivering the rest of Jakarta EE by EclipseCon Europe (one month later).

Think about it.  We can talk about tomorrow.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta 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