Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] [Ballot] - Denoting which implementation wasused to ratify a specification

Option 3.

 

While the examples don’t seem correct in all cases, because I see no real difference between Options 2 and 3 I think higher on the page than Ballot results etc. provides a better visibility to the list of implementations.

 

Werner

 

Von: Kevin Sutter
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. März 2021 19:27
An: Jakarta specification discussions
Betreff: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] [Ballot] - Denoting which implementation wasused to ratify a specification

 

Option 3 (IBM).  I believe this provides the most consistent representation of all of the artifacts -- Spec, API, TCK, and CI.  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:        Gurkan Erdogdu <gerdogdu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Jakarta specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        03/25/2021 13:05
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] [Ballot] - Denoting which implementation was used to ratify a specification
Sent by:        "jakarta.ee-spec" <jakarta.ee-spec-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>




Hi
My preference is 3 (non-binding) and I think this will be a fair choice.
Regards.
Gurkan Erdogdu
ManageCat.

On 22 Mar 2021, at 21:00, Paul Buck <paul.buck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


The Specification Committee has discussed the proposal to demote on a specification page which open source implementation was used during ratification of the specification during a Release Review. There have been robust discussions on the mailing list and in meetings. Four options emerged which I have listed below. They have been mocked up by Ivar, see the PRs. Option 4 has no PR since it is the "do nothing" choice.  Options:

  1. Place an asterisk beside implementation in the list of Compatible Implementations (https://deploy-preview-338--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app/specifications/jsonp/2.0/)
  1. Provide a link to the Compatibility Certification Requests used for the Ballot at the bottom of the page (https://deploy-preview-337--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app/specifications/jsonp/2.0/)
  1. Include the compatible implementation in the list of  release artifacts at the top of the spec page (https://deploy-preview-329--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app/specifications/jsonp/2.0/)
  1. Do nothing, as is, no denotation (https://jakarta.ee/specifications/jsonp/2.0/)

Specification Committee members, please respond with your choice: 1, 2, 3, or 4.

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


 

Back to the top