| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [BALLOT] Jakarta EE Specification Versioning, Change, and Deprecation Process Update |
|
Thank you, Andrew, for making the updates! I had a thought on removing an optional feature:
At the moment, the doc states removing of optional features is a major update. Should we treat the removal of optional features as minor update or major update?
Optional features are not reinforced by the corresponding specification and the implementations can provide the support as they wish. Even if we remove the optional features, an implementation could continue supporting it. If we treat removing optional features
a major update, whenever we remove a mandatory feature, we will require the spec to do 2 major updates to get the feature removed.
I think treating the removal of optional features as a minor update makes more sense. We can discuss more on today's call,
Thanks
Emily
================ Emily Jiang Java Champion, Fellow of BCS STSM, Jakarta and MicroProfile Architect
@IBM
Liberty
Cloud Native Architect & Advocate
LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/emilyfhjiang/
From: Andrew Pielage <andrew.pielage@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 06 September 2023 09:14 To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Emily Jiang <EMIJIANG@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [BALLOT] Jakarta EE Specification Versioning, Change, and Deprecation Process Update
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Yep you’re correct, it’s an oversight from us changing the behaviour and not updating it in all respective locations.
I have suggested amendments.
Thanks!
From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Emily Jiang via jakarta.ee-spec.committee
Since I missed last Spec call, I went through the doc once more. I noticed one conflicting statement when talking about transiting a feature from mandatory to optional.
On page 4 under Component Specification Component FeatureChanges to Component features follow this versioning strategy:
Later on, the doc has: As noted above, the transition of the feature to being optional would mandate a minor release, and the removal of it would mandate a major one.
and later the example also builds on the minor change statement.
The Component specification transitions the feature to being an optional one in release 2.1 and marks it for removal.
I think transition of an existing mandatory feature to being an optional one is a major version change. The first statement was correct, and the following ones should be updated to be consistent. Andrew, can you confirm?
Thanks
Emily STSM, Jakarta and MicroProfile Architect @IBM Liberty Cloud Native Architect & Advocate
E-mail:
emijiang@xxxxxxxxxx
From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Ivar Grimstad via jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
+1 (PMC) Ivar On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2: 34 PM Kenji Kazumura (Fujitsu) via jakarta. ee-spec. committee <jakarta. ee-spec. committee@ eclipse. org> wrote: +1 (Fujitsu) -Kenji Kazumura From: jakarta. ee-spec. committee <jakarta. ee-spec. committee-bounces@ eclipse. org> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd +1 (PMC)
Ivar
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:34 PM Kenji Kazumura (Fujitsu) via jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-- Ivar Grimstad Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.
Unless otherwise stated above:
Unless otherwise stated above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU |