The answer to your question, which isn't one of the choices in your
poll, is clearly "it depends". :-)
If the poll is effectively a vote, then one per member.
If it's just an opinion poll to stimulate or focus discussion, then
I have no problem hearing from everyone.
So I think it depends on what you're going to do with the results of
the poll.
David Blevins wrote on 6/27/19 9:42 PM:
I liked this poll and think we should do more of them.
Question on polling etiquette. Are we generally
happy to have several votes per member and just count the
primary or do we prefer one vote?
--
David Blevins
310-633-3852
That
recommendation has been added to the JESP OPs.
I
think we've left
the poll open long enough: https://doodle.com/poll/efb2ym6zmvr55ey6
Looks
like the
the use of two repositories (one for spec and
api, and the other for tck)
is the preferred configuration (ala CDI). We
should probably communicate
this through the PMC? Will this just be a
strong suggestion or will
this be required? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect
e-mail:
sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620
(office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From:
Scott
Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
06/20/2019
05:47 PM
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] GitHub
repository naming
conventions?
Sent
by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I did set
on up and sent an invite to
this list.
https://doodle.com/poll/efb2ym6zmvr55ey6
We still
should have a recommended structure
that we define in the JESP operations guide.
On Jun 20,
2019, at 3:32 PM, Bill Shannon
<bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Do you want
to set up a Doodle poll?
:-)
And you-know-who will tell us that each project
should make their own decision
so there's no need for a vote. :-)
Scott Stark
wrote on 6/20/19 3:20 PM:
For Jakarta
EE 8 I think it is now clear
that the committers on a spec project will have
access to spec, api and
tck as we are not going to look to create
separate TCK projects. Down the
road I believe we should have separate TCK
projects.
For a given
spec project X, there are
three legitimate options as far as I can see:
1. one repo
with the 3 content roots.
This is what MicroProfile does.
X/{api,
spec, tck}
2. Two
repos with api and spec contents
under X-spec, and the TCK in the X-tck repo.
This is how CDI is structured.
X-spec/{api,
spec}
X-tck
3. Three
repos with api, spec and TCK
contents each under a separate repo:
X-api
X-spec
X-tck
We might as
well simply run a vote on
what the preferred structure is for Jakarta EE
8.
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password,
or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
|
