Jakarta EE Spec Committee - September 30th, 2020

[Tom Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 18:41, Paul Buck <paul.buck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jakarta EE Spec Committee - September 30th, 2020

Attendees (present in bold):

Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu

Dan Bandera - IBM - Kevin Sutter

Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov 

Andrew Pielage - Payara - Matt Gill

Scott Stark - Red Hat - Mark Little, Scott Marlow

David Blevins - Tomitribe - Jean-Louis Monteiro, Cesar Hernandez

Ivar Grimstad - PMC Representative

Marcelo Ancelmo - Participant Member - Martijn Verburg

Werner Keil - Committer Member

Scott (Congquan) Wang - Primeton - Enterprise Member 

Eclipse Foundation: Tanja Obradovic, Paul Buck, Wayne Beaton

Reference: EFSP, JESP

Past business / action items:

• Approval is requested for the meeting minutes from the September 16th and 23rd meetings as drafted - Approved.

Agenda:

• Jakarta EE 9 Specification ballot tracking spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YTUpfdLZZrk2_UGwoX2w0seOCulseRO3sQJIjWxpDAa7g/edit#gid=0

• Is using the same group/artifacts coords as EE8 the right thing for EE9? [Scott S.]

• See email thread initiated on Sep 18, 2020, 9:50 PM on the Spec Committee list by Scott for background.

• https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec/msg00891.html 

Discussed: Is there a use case to have concurrent access to both API’s? Consider for a service release ie. 9.1? Continue as needed on the mailing list.

• We may need maintenance releases of certain TCKs very shortly after some of their final ballots [David B.]

• Some TCKs have spec assertion files that have invalid javax references

• Some of the TCKs have javax in the fallback signature files.  Affects any testing on JDKs later than 11. 

Discussed: Fixups needed at some point. File bugs/issues and fix in a future release (maintenance?). 

• Do PRs with named snapshot builds need to be replaced with a “release candidate” builds? [David]

Discussion: i) Tag the snapshot build and assure that it is kept around (accessible from a public source and never deleted). If weekly build is used, the project team needs to assure the build is suitably archived ii) Document the requirement and see that others follow. iii) Future release use only milestone or release candidate builds

Proposal: Request that the servlet team to do i) and draft text to update operations guide based on the discussion for review

I am sorry if this was revisited recently and I missed that information.

Jakarta Transactions (specification is in ballot) used a weekly build to obtain TCK results: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues/180 / https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/glassfish/certifications/jakarta-transactions/2.0/TCK-Results.html

If https://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/glassfish/weekly/glassfish-6.0.0-SNAPSHOT-2020-10-04.zip is not enough of an archive, please let me know if the Jakarta Transactions project need to do something.

Thanks,

Tom

• Individual Jakarta EE specifications not in Jakarta EE 9 [Ivar]

• Jakarta NoSQL ready for Progress Review
  https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/236 

• Heads-Up: MVC Release Review on the way
  https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/281 

• Suggested update to Operations Guide for ballot initiation for individual specs not in Jakarta EE 9
  https://github.com/jakartaee/jakarta.ee/pull/908/files

Action: Please review the above PR and add your comments and/or support.  

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec