[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Proposed Updates to Ratified CIs on Platform Specification page
|
+1 I like it better than the explicit listings
Any comments or suggestions
with this approach? Replies here or via PR would be appreciated.
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)
From:
Kevin
Sutter/Rochester/IBM
To:
"Jakarta
specification committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
05/06/2021
12:11
Subject:
Proposed
Updates to Ratified CIs on Platform Specification page
Hi,
Per the discussion
on yesterday's Spec Committee call, I conferred with Ivar and came up with
the following proposed draft PR.
PR: https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/379
Preview: https://deploy-preview-379--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app/specifications/platform/9.1/
As a reminder, this discussion was initiated due to the request by ManageFish
to be listed as a CI used for Ratification on the 9.1 Platform page --
even though ManageFish is a strict derivative (re-packaged) Glassfish distribution.
We are going ahead with listing ManageFish for the 9.1 ballot, but
we may want to do something different going forward. That's the background
for this proposed PR.
You'll notice
a few things about this PR:- I changed the
"Compatible Implementation" wording with "Compatible Certification
Request" wording.
- I'm removing the
"used for ratification.." clause.
- I replaced the
list of CIs with a general link that points at a newly created "Jakarta
EE 9.1 CCRs" Milestone. The Milestone can show all of the various
CCRs that are associated with this release in any state -- open, closed,
accepted (or not), etc.
- I did add a new
[ratified] label to indicate which CCR was used to ratify the Platform
Specification version. We still need to identify which CCR (or CI)
was used for ratification. This approach is not as blatant as the
previous approach. Maybe it's more acceptable?
Let's try to discuss
this via the mailing list and/or the PR so that we can have a fruitful
discussion at our next Spec Committee call. I'm not advocating that
we change anything for the 9.1 release. I just used 9.1 because it
was unique and easy to work with. 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
