[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] TCK URL inconsistencies
|
At least you were
accurate when you said that "No one seems to understand..." :-p
---------------------------------------------------
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/kevinwsutterFrom:
Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>To:
Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>Date:
08/30/2019
01:13 PMSubject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] TCK URL inconsistencies
I see, so it's all my fault! :-)
Kevin Sutter wrote on 8/30/19 7:09 AM:As I was looking
at this data, I think maybe the reason that most everyone has the CR incorrect
is because our Platform and Web Profile CRs were incorrect... These
were probably used as a "model" for most everybody's CR issue...
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/99
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/100
---------------------------------------------------
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: 08/30/2019
08:49 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] TCK URL inconsistencies
Sent by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
From
my perspective it has been very confusing and quite frustrating. I think
the issue arises because of the link to artefacts that don’t exist, obviously
if you are expecting a 404 you can’t check whether what you have is correct
or not.
Won’t
the “nothing is real yet” perpetuate into future releases, at least for
the first Compatible Implementation? Isn’t this caused by the chicken
and egg requirement that a spec can’t go final without a compatible implementation
and a compatible implementation can’t be done until the spec/tck goes
final? For a following Compatible Implementation things are much simpler
as the TCK, api jars etc. will be available from a known download location.
Steve
From:jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx<jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>On Behalf Of Kevin Sutter
Sent: 30 August 2019 14:26
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] TCK URL inconsistencies
I
agree that it was/is confusing. We tried to catch many of these during
our reviews of the material, but as you and Ed have documented, we failed
on catching everything.
I think part of the confusion is because nothing was "real" yet.
It was difficult for people to put a URL into the various locations
that had absolutely no data. We hadn't promoted anything yet, so
there was no model to look at to ensure that the proper URL was being used.
But, the staging repository was real, so many people just kept using
that. So, in some cases, I think this was just an anomaly for this
first release.
We had also made a conscious decision that we knew some of this data was
going to be inconsistent and we would correct it later.
We have already had the discussion about the duplicate data between the
CR and the TCK Results. We decided to allow the duplicate entries
or to have a pointer from the CR to the TCK Results. Most people
have decided to go the duplication route. In that case, if they make
the mistake in one location, it's going to show up in the other.
Personally, I don't think the situation is all that bad. We will
correct the entries for this release. Add some clearer instructions
for the entries for the next time, and move on. I'm fine with tools
if they are easy to create and maintain, but it sounds like this "spec
lint" tool might be overkill...
---------------------------------------------------
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: Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 08/29/2019
05:54 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] TCK URL inconsistencies
Sent by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
The URL of the TCK needs to appear in 4 places for a specification review:
- The text
of the Pull Request
- In the _index.md
file in the Pull Request
- In the Compatibility
Certification Request issue
- In the TCK
Results Summary (because it needs to include a copy of the Compatibility
Certification Request)
The
first one needs to be the URL of the staged TCK, so that we can review
it.
The last three need to be the URL that the TCK will appear at once the
spec is approved, so that these web pages will be valid after approval.
No one seems to understand that the last three need to be the same, need
to be different than the first one, and will not be valid at the time they're
entered.
Ed did an audit of these URLs; see the attached spreadsheet. The
entries in green are correct. You'll see that almost all of the #2
- #4 entries are wrong. We're going to correct the ones that we can,
and ask others to correct the ones we can't.
Given the widespread confusion over this, it raises the issue...
Maybe we're doing the wrong thing?
Maybe we're asking people to do something that's so difficult or counterintuitive
that they're never going to get it right?
I'm looking for ideas of how to improve the situation.
Obviously the easiest thing for us to do is to improve the instructions.
I'm highly doubtful that that will be sufficiently effective.
We could invest in a "spec lint" tool that would automate the
detection and reporting of these errors, allowing submitters to correct
them before we see them. I believe David started something like this.
I also threw together a script to check these TCK URLs (after Ed
did the audit by hand, of course). I think this will be useful for
other issues, but some of these checks will be very ad hoc and will require
updating with each release.
We could stop asking for the TCK URL in the _index.md file, and fill that
in for them when we publish the file. (We should also fill in links
to the SHA-256 and the digital signature.)
We could stop requiring the Compatibility Certification Request and the
TCK Results summary to have duplicate information and put it in one place
and link to the other. (Although I understand the rationale for having
it in both places.)
Anyone have any other ideas?
[attachment "Jakarta-TCK-Tracking 2.xlsx" deleted by Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM]
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
