[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT] MicroProfile LRA 2.0 Specification Release Review - VOTE by March 2 (two weeks)
|
0 (iJUG)
Why:
I don't want to block the LRA 2.0
release in general.
There are findings in the review, some
need to be solved outside of this specification first and do not
affect LRA alone:
- Michael found the missing images in
the HTML version (good catch by the way) already - need to be
fixed in the MP Parent.
- The missing release notes entry for
the 2.0 release - this is a very nice to have, but not a
requirement in general.
- The references in the spec for JAX-RS
instead of Jakarta RESTful Web Services - this was part of the
change between the Java/Jakarta EE 8 and Jakarta EE 9 - so this
should have been fixed, as it's current referenced name means a
version in the old namespace. Of course this is not consequently
enforced elsewhere too. As this spec name will be changed in the
future to simply Jakarta REST a solution could be to reference the
current full name in the spec documents begin and introduce the
(new) short name for further use in the spec document.
- Security issues, that need to be
fixed in the MP Parent.
In general, I think, when there are
findings during the review it's not bad and quite usual during QA
- then there is a chance fixing them before the release and
improve the quality.
I can offer my support in fixing the MP
Parent part (or other issues).
Thanks & best,
Jan
Am 01.03.23 um 18:29 schrieb Roberto
Cortez via microprofile-wg:
Hi,
Hi Michael and Jan,
Thanks for the review.
Jan, the security issues you refer to are in
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile/pull/300,
correct? In my opinion, these do not affect the API JAR directly
(which the users consume), so it should be fine to release it as
is. Of course, I agree that we should bump the parent version.
We are happy to do it in a 2.0.1 right after we get this done,
or if we don’t get the ballot to pass, we reroll with the fixes
in.
We are still waiting for the following members to
vote:
- Atlanta JUG
- IBM
- Tomitribe
- iJUG
- Microsoft
- Primeton
- Payara
Please cast your vote as soon as possible. The
ballot closes tomorrow.
Thank you!
Cheers
Roberto
Hi Michael,
I think his behaviour of
missing parts in the HTML spec document is because in
the MicroProfile Parent's "asciidoc" profile these
additional resources are not exported to the Maven
repository.
This affects images here, but is a general problem for
the HTML version of documents, as additional resources
like images, css files and fonts, that are referenced
by relative paths to the root document, not get pushed
by the current versions of MicroProfile Parent.
We need to fix this.
Additional findings from my
side so far:
In the LRA 2.0 spec
document there is no release notes section for 2.0 -
this is not a requirement, but really helps reviewers
;-)
In the Spec document,
JAX-RS is referenced which is the old (protected) spec
name, not Jakarta RESTful Web Services (hopefully soon
called Jakarta REST simply).
I have findings regarding
MicroProfile Parent, Maven related to vulnerabilities
(I reported some of them in vulnerability process
already). Should we fix them first?
I really like this
specification, but I have strong concerns releasing a
version with known (security) issues...
Any thoughts regrading
this?
Best,
Jan
Am 26.02.23 um 12:40
schrieb Michael Redlich:
+1
(Garden State JUG)
I
wanted to mention that the images in the HTML
version of the specification aren't rendered, but
they are rendered in the PDF version. I've
noticed this behavior with AsciiDoctor, but
haven't yet determined why.
Mike.
To approve and ratify the
Release Review of MicroProfile LRA 2.0
Specification, the Steering Committee
Representatives vote is requested. Please
respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1
(reject). Any feedback that you can provide to
support your vote will be appreciated.
The MicroProfile
Specification Process requires the
Specification Committee and the Community to
provide feedback during the approval process
using the relevant documents:
This ballot will last
fourteen days, ending on Thursday, March 2nd.
The ballot requires a Super-majority positive
vote of the Steering Committee members. There
is no veto. Community input and Community
votes are welcomed. However, only the votes
delivered by Steering Committee
Representatives will be counted.
--
Thank you
Roberto Cortez, on behalf of
the MicroProfile Steering Committee
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your
password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
--
Code,
Test, Write,
Cycle,
Run,
Drink,
Sleep ...
Repeat
Lead Java Queue
Editor, InfoQ
Laissez Les
Bon Temps Rouler
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password,
or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg