Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Ballot for plans (NoSQL for instance)
Late to the party but adding my voice to this - I'm really struggling to give a review of this plan as I can't find any kind of guide or requirements for what constitutes an acceptable plan.

As Jean-Louis pointed out, trying to use the same requirements as a progress or release review has it fall short (e.g. EPL rather than EFTL in TCK), and it's not really the same kind of thing.

Is there some guidance I'm missing? Otherwise I'll have to abstain from voting (or -1).

Thanks,

Andrew Pielage

Java Developer at Payara Services Ltd

Open Source Enterprise Software & Support


From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 08 October 2020 10:05
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Ballot for plans (NoSQL for instance)
 
Sorry for the spam.

What is a plan in your mind?
The PR looks like a draft PR for a specification.

We were not expecting a draft spec of what already exists in the JNoSQL implementation, but a plan to bring this to a top level specification in Jakarta.
Basically, what do we want?
Where do we want to go with this specification?
Why?
How to get at least another implementation (otherwise, there is no point if creating a specification right)?



On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:13 AM Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,

I was reviewing again https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/236 yesterday night.
We haven't got any chance to discuss this during the meeting yesterday, so maybe we can quickly come to some kind of agreement or at least at the same level.

The PR is using the same template as the actual specification PRs, but NoSQL is a plan and not really a specification.

Anyways, I tried to apply the same requirements, but it does not sound good. 
We probably need to lower the bar for plans like this, isn't it?

What do we want to be strict with?
And what are we ok to let go?

Jean-Louis

Back to the top