Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Proposed Updates to Ratified CIs on Platform Specification page
I like it a lot.

Agree that it's less blatant.  Things won't be listed on the spec page twice, appear to have elevated status or appear endorsed.  The "Jakarta EE 9.1 CCRs" page is hard to use for marketing purposes, but is very detailed for technical purposes.  Listing the CCRs in any state is also great as then there's no pressure on release day to sort them out before putting a vote up; we just need an approved CCR that allows us to prove the TCK can be passed.

-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

On May 12, 2021, at 9:02 AM, Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Any comments or suggestions with this approach?  Replies here or via PR would be appreciated.  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:        Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM
To:        "Jakarta specification committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        05/06/2021 12:11
Subject:        Proposed Updates to Ratified CIs on Platform Specification page


Hi,
Per the discussion on yesterday's Spec Committee call, I conferred with Ivar and came up with the following proposed draft PR.

PR:  https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/379
Preview:  https://deploy-preview-379--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app/specifications/platform/9.1/

As a reminder, this discussion was initiated due to the request by ManageFish to be listed as a CI used for Ratification on the 9.1 Platform page -- even though ManageFish is a strict derivative (re-packaged) Glassfish distribution.  We are going ahead with listing ManageFish for the 9.1 ballot, but we may want to do something different going forward.  That's the background for this proposed PR.

You'll notice a few things about this PR:
  • I changed the "Compatible Implementation" wording with "Compatible Certification Request" wording.
  • I'm removing the "used for ratification.." clause.
  • I replaced the list of CIs with a general link that points at a newly created "Jakarta EE 9.1 CCRs" Milestone.  The Milestone can show all of the various CCRs that are associated with this release in any state -- open, closed, accepted (or not), etc.
  • I did add a new [ratified] label to indicate which CCR was used to ratify the Platform Specification version.  We still need to identify which CCR (or CI) was used for ratification.  This approach is not as blatant as the previous approach.  Maybe it's more acceptable?

Let's try to discuss this via the mailing list and/or the PR so that we can have a fruitful discussion at our next Spec Committee call.  I'm not advocating that we change anything for the 9.1 release.  I just used 9.1 because it was unique and easy to work with.  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)


_______________________________________________
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

Back to the top