Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] *URGENT REQUEST* Question about CIs used

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Correct, Arjan.  I'm
glad I read all of your replies before replying to the first one...  :-)


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

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)



From:
       arjan
tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
       Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       05/03/2021
08:13
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] *URGENT REQUEST* Question about CIs used
for Ratification
Sent
by:        "jakarta.ee-spec.committee"
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

Hi,

Sorry, I misread your email. I thought
it was mainly about being listed as compatible implementation, but this
is about the ratification process for Jakarta EE 9.1. In that case, we
have 2 unique situations; multiple implementations to start with (which
is a first), and a derived version of GF taking part in that process.

Kind regards,
Arjan


On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 3:01 PM arjan
tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi,

I'm not in the spec committee, but I
wonder how unique this case really is. Isn't this basically the same as
Apusic AAS, TongWeb Application Server, Thunisoft Application Server, Primeton
AppServer and to a degree perhaps even Fujitsu Software Enterprise Application
Server?

Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:45 PM Kevin
Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi,
Some of you may have noticed that ManagedCat has submitted their ManagedFish
product as a CI for Ratification:

Hi Kevin
Can you also put ManageCat into the ballot as we opened a 9.1 certification
request in https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/350
Regards.
Gurkan


I have posted my thoughts on this request both to his CCR (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/350)
and the Specifications PR (https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/372).
 I basically indicated that I didn't see a need to list ManagedCat
as a CI for Ratification and include it on the ballot because it's basically
just a commercially supported version of Eclipse Glassfish.  I welcomed
him to submit his product for the Compatible Products page.

Gurkan does not agree and is asking to be included on the ballot. 
This is a unique case that is not directly outlined in the EFSP. 
What are the collective thoughts from the Spec Committee?  We want
to get this ballot out today, so an immediate discussion is required. 
Thanks!

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

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To 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 unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee