[
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)
|
It does seem that we could offer more concise guidance if it's
not clear. Here are some previous examples:
Jakarta EE 9 Release Plan Ballot:
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec/msg00562.html
Jakarta Enterprise Beans 4.0 Release Plan:
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec/msg00618.html
I would consult the Developer Handbook:
https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#releases-plan
It is possible that NoSQL is further along with the specification
writing than many of the previous examples were, but the plan
review ought to include some elements of the proposed plan.
Maybe this helps?
-- Ed
On 10/9/2020 8:33 AM, Andrew Pielage
wrote:
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
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)?
Hi all,
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
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!P2YvegbenSoQeSmsNNK7sTSrlVqbuO0KcnOkitwhWvY44FwfNWw02DN7xvXOUG8$