I don’t think Steven is missing any permissions on a particular GH repository nor does it seem necessary to rename those, the issue some feel uncomfortable with is that e.g.
Jakarta Concurrency says this
Under the Compatible Implementations for its latest release in Jakarta EE 9 while Jakarta Activation 2 says
Mail says
And JSON Processing 2.0 says
So those are at least 4 different patterns under the same Jakarta EE 9 platform release.
So while "Jakarta Concurrency CI 2.0.0" and "Eclipse Implementation of Jakarta Activation" (the latter without a version number though) both sound tolerable, there is no reason why those without an official implementation project name like "Hibernate", "Soteria", etc. should deviate so much.
Werner
> I can change the concurrency RI project name if needed if someone tells me what to do
Assuming that you mean the GitHub repository, ask webmaster for assistance.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 5:05 AM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I can change the concurrency RI project name if needed if someone tells me what to do 😊
I would not use "Eclipse JSON Processing 2.0.0." in one case while e.g. Jakarta Concurrency uses "Jakarta Concurrency CI 2.0.0.", see https://jakarta.ee/specifications/concurrency/2.0/, just add a "CI" there, too ;-)
Werner
Yes, I agree.
There needs to be a clear difference in the naming.
Moving this to a separate thread so we don't overlook it.
> Unrelated comment, I noticed the compatible implementation listed for JSON P is wrong. It says the compatible implementations name is "Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0." That's not appropriate. For 1.2 we used "Eclipse JSON Processing 1.1.5"
>
> - https://jakarta.ee/specifications/jsonp/1.1/
> - https://jakarta.ee/specifications/jsonp/2.0/
>
> This is part of the Advance Implementation Neutrality topic in our 2021 plan. Thihup's implementation cannot be perceived as competing against "the official" Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0 implementation also called "Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0."
>
> No implementation should be allowed to use the spec branding like that, even if it is in at Eclipse, a former RI, or happens to be in the same repo as the spec. The fact that the Eclipse implementation is in the same repo is something that needs to be fixed. Until we fix it, we still need to use neutral branding like "Eclipse JSON Processing" or "Eclipse Mail."
Thoughts?
-David
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To 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 unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
--
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation
