Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] : Re: Discuss proposed Resolution for el

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we're shifting
the conversation...  We started with trying to define a means of removingoptional aspects of the Platform Specification.  But, now we're talking
about removing the necessity to test optional aspects of the Platform.
 Totally different conversation.

Removing the necessity
to test the optional features of a Spec by a ratified Compatible Implementation
would require an adjustment to the EFSP:

"A
Specification Version must identify at least one Compatible Implementation
under an Open Source License that implements all optional elements of the
Specification and fulfills the requirements of all elements (including
optional elements) of the TCK."


---------------------------------------------------
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:
       "Scott
Stark" <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       "Jakarta
specification committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       07/06/2021
17:30
Subject:
       Re:
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Re: Discuss proposed Resolution
for eliminating Optional aspects of Specifications
Sent
by:        "jakarta.ee-spec.committee"
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

Correct. On Jul 6, 2021 at
3:04:09 PM, David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On Jul
6, 2021, at 6:33 AM, Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: The minimum
compromise approach Red Hat would support would be to remove any 
Correct.

On Jul 6, 2021 at 3:04:09 PM, David Blevins
<dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jul 6, 2021, at 6:33 AM, Scott Stark
<sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

The minimum compromise approach Red Hat
would support would be to remove any optional TCK sets as a requirement
to ratify a profile specification. Just kicking this can down the road
for another release without some remediation of the current burden optional
features place on the ratification process is not acceptable.

Confirming I understood correctly. 
You would support an approach where the CMP/BMP TCK tests are still present
in the TCK, but not required for ratification.  Of course any implementation
that implements CMP/BMP would still be required to pass those tests.

Did I read that correctly?


-David
_______________________________________________
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