| Re: [jta-dev] Jakarta Transactions 2.0 for Jakarta EE 9 remaining items |
Hi David,On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:02, David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi All,
I'm one of the Jakarta Transaction mentors for the Jakarta EE 9 release and wanted to ask the open-ended question on if there are any questions/issues/blockers I can move forward for you? There's a specification committee call tomorrow at 9am pacific, so I would have the opportunity to consult with everyone and come back with answers quickly.
Here's the status I can see going through the various emails and PRs.
- Slow PR reviews has been an issue and should be noted to the
Specification Committee even if there's no immediate remedy.From my own point of view, it seems the project can deal with the time it takes to get a review. We could identify a routine to use to achieve specific dates though. Is that in the projects control or something we need the committee to approve?
- With PRs 161 merged in the last 5 days we're largely good to go from
a specification perspective. There were other PRs, but that was the
big one.+1
- Next steps that can be done in parallel:Any actions that "block" EE9, it would be great to get in: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AEE9
- stage a spec/api release in jakarta.oss.sonatype.org
I have just added https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues/171 - thanks, I can take that one.
- promote the TCKI think I can take that generally - it relates to https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues/156.If another Jakarta Transactions project committer can help review https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/issues/431 it will help though.
NOTE: ok to do both of these steps optimistically as they are non
permanent and can be redone
- Get a compatible implementation to complete a run with the promoted
TCK and staged API jarWe have some runs for the project, but yes this needs to be done by the CI for the actual request to EE9.
- Submit certification request
- Update draft PR in jakartaee/specifications repo with above dataPlease can you clarify "Submit certification request" compared to the PR (https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/265).
Does this sound about right? If so any thoughts on when API/Spec release will be staged and TCK promoted? (note both of these can be done repeatedly until we get something we like)I can probably stage a 2.0.0 maybe tomorrow.
Reminder for clarity, when we do the API/spec release we should click to close the repo in Nexus, but not click to release it like we have the RCs. The artifacts for final releases should stay in the staged repo until the ballot completes and then promoted afterwards. This is also why it's safe to stage the release asap as it can be discarded and redone if there are issues.Thanks!
Any steps I missed?Does anyone think we need https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues/169 (or anything else from https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues that doesn't have the EE9 label) for EE9?Thanks again,Tom
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Sep 18, 2020, at 5:41 AM, Jonathan Gallimore <jgallimore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think we're good. I was specifically having issues with the PDF, but I think I had some git-weirdness going on. Seems fine now after your PR is merged.
>
> I'd agree with not changing the html.
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:34 PM Tom Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't see the schooner on:
> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/jakarta-activation-spec-2.0.html
> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/annotations/2.0/annotations-spec-2.0-RC1.html
> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/authentication/2.0/authentication-spec-2.0-SNAPSHOT.html
> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/authorization/2.0/authorization-spec-2.0.html
> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/batch/2.0/jakarta-batch-spec-2.0.html
> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/bean-validation/3.0/jakarta-bean-validation-spec-3.0.html
> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/concurrency/2.0/concurrency-spec-2.0-RC2.html
> I would not propose to try to add it at this time.
>
> That means we should be OK to move ahead and try to commence some release activities. I will try to build and release an 2.0.0.RC3. Then we can try to move on with the GA.
>
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 12:17, Tom Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Jonathan!
>
> Once we see https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/pull/167 pass then I will merge that and we can move towards releasing hopefully (unless someone things we need to address the schooner in the HTML version of the spec).
>
> Thanks again!
> Tom
>
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 11:46, Jonathan Gallimore <jgallimore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Is there anything else we need to do? If there's other stuff on the list, or if you need some help, please let us know!
>
> Jon
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 5:44 PM Tom Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The current action that we need to complete as a project is for a committer to review: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/pull/161 so that it can be merged. After that I can raise a PR for https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues/165 and then we will hopefully have the main changes made for Jakarta Transactions 2.0.0.
>
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:12, Tom Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think for Jakarta Transactions we will make no further changes to JTS reference so I closed #105 already.
>
> In terms of where we are now, hopefully we can get the spec merged into master and then proceed on but I am still wondering about https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/pull/159 so I intend to create a different thread about that if I can't work out whether we need to do something further there.
>
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 17:26, Tom Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Does anyone have a suggestion on how to deal with: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues/105 / https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/238
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 16:12, Tom Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I will not be available next week and so will not be able to work on the below during that time.
>
> What I think we still need to do:
> 1. Resolve (at least) these issues: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AEE9
> 2. Release a release candidate (RC3) to check that things are still OK (in my opinion)
> 3. Release the GA
> 4. Submit the ballot: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues/158
> (During these steps keeping this issue up-to-date: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues/75)
>
> I think the main unknowns from item "1." is to resolve https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/issues/105 with respect to understanding the JTS reference. Please also see the discussion on that issue and also see the question it depends upon: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/238 - if someone can help move that on next week it would be great.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> jta-dev mailing list
> jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Gallimore
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> _______________________________________________
> jta-dev mailing list
> jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev
> _______________________________________________
> jta-dev mailing list
> jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Gallimore
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> _______________________________________________
> jta-dev mailing list
> jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev
_______________________________________________
jta-dev mailing list
jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev