[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Lead approval for Compatibility request?
|
On 2021-02-24 3:04 p.m., Kevin Sutter
wrote:
Sure, I buy
that.
But, at least provide the link. If you need credentials or
license or whatever to do the actual download, then that's okay.
That's
what we do with our WebSphere Liberty downloads. But, at least
provide
a long-lived url that could be used as a reference. That's my
point.
It looks like
Fujitsu does a similar thing. And, even Oracle does something
similar
with requiring a license checkbox.
Got it. 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:
Scott
Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
jakartaee-platform
developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
02/24/2021
13:59
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Lead approval for Compatibility
request?
Sent
by: "jakartaee-platform-dev"
<jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
All that we can require is that the
results
be available in a public accessible form. We cannot require
access to the
server binary nor can we require access to the platform used to
run the
TCK and server. Both could be proprietary derivatives of some OS
and Java
SE. All we can verify is that the correct TCK was passed and
that the results
look consistent with the expected TCK results.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:52 AM
Mike
Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Kevin,
I definitely see your point. But I
have
a question. The EFSP specifically supports the enablement of
independent
implementations made available under proprietary license terms.
Under such
licensing approaches sometimes the binaries are available only
to paying
customers. What would be a reasonable mechanism to support these
scenarios
given our self-certification approach?
To be clear, I am not certain that
this
is what is happening in this particular case. But I think it is
at least
close.
On 2021-02-24 2:33 p.m., Kevin
Sutter
wrote:
Ed,
I was seeing all of the back-and-forth in this Issue and I
thought things
were still in state of flux... Based on this note, I just went
out
to the CCR and found several of the items that you had already
pointed
out. But, I also found a couple of new ones.
I also take exception with the idea that a download link or page
is not
required. Every CCR that I have been reviewing, I have been
treating
this as a requirement. I know it says "(if applicable)",
but I've been holding them to higher standard. How else can
these
CCRs stand the test of time? We need CIs to be long-lived and
available
on an external, public web site. Otherwise, as @hantsy pointed
out,
how else do we know that this request is real? Granted, none of
us
will attempt to actually run the tests. But, I think we need to
require
a real download executable.
I've posted my comments to the Issue. I am not ready to approve
it
yet.
---------------------------------------------------
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: Ed
Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: jakartaee-platform
developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 02/24/2021
11:25
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
[jakartaee-platform-dev] Lead approval for Compatibility
request?
Sent by: "jakartaee-platform-dev"
<jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,
Calling your attention to the Platform Certification request,
currently
pending for Jakarta EE 8, Inforsuite AS.
Compatibility
certification request for InforSuite Application Server for
Full Platform
#306
It's been reviewed by Ivar and myself. They'd like approval as
quickly
as possible -- that would be 14 days from when it was filed
(Feb. 28th),
unless a lead approves. I've identified a minor correction to
the TCK results
summary, but otherwise, it looks good to me.
Does anyone with the Lead role want to approve this now (or
maybe tomorrow)?
-- Ed_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev