Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] [External] : Re: [BALLOT] Release Review for Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile
Right, these are all projects that are used by CDI 4.0. The CDI 4.0 IP log was approved, and as I read the handbook, the IPZilla tool and CQs are deprecated in favor of using the Eclipse Dash License Tool:
https://github.com/eclipse/dash-licenses

Running that on these artifacts only shows the org.jboss.arquillian:arquillian-bom:1.7.0.Alpha10 as unknown, but that has the same license as the other arquillian artifacts. I did create a CQ for the bom for the sake of completeness (https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24218).

└> echo "org.jboss.arquillian.container:container-se-api:jar:1.0.1.Final" | java -jar /tmp/org.eclipse.dash.licenses-latest.jar -

[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 0 items.

[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 1 items.

[main] INFO Vetted license information was found for all content. No further investigation is required.

└> echo "org.jboss.arquillian.container:arquillian-container-test-spi:jar:1.7.0.Alpha10" | java -jar /tmp/org.eclipse.dash.licenses-latest.jar -

[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 0 items.

[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 1 items.

[main] INFO Vetted license information was found for all content. No further investigation is required.

└> echo "org.jboss.arquillian.junit5:arquillian-junit5-container:jar:1.7.0.Alpha10" | java -jar /tmp/org.eclipse.dash.licenses-latest.jar -

[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 0 items.

[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 1 items.

[main] INFO Vetted license information was found for all content. No further investigation is required.

└> echo "org.jboss.arquillian:arquillian-bom:1.7.0.Alpha10" | java -jar /tmp/org.eclipse.dash.licenses-latest.jar -

[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 0 items.

[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 1 items.

[main] INFO License information could not be automatically verified for the following content:

[main] INFO 

[main] INFO maven/mavencentral/org.jboss.arquillian/arquillian-bom/1.7.0.Alpha10

[main] INFO 

[main] INFO This content is either not correctly mapped by the system, or requires review.

└> echo "org.testng:testng:7.4.0" | java -jar /tmp/org.eclipse.dash.licenses-latest.jar -

[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 0 items.

[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 1 items.

[main] INFO Vetted license information was found for all content. No further investigation is required.

└> echo "net.sourceforge.htmlunit:htmlunit:2.50.0" | java -jar /tmp/org.eclipse.dash.licenses-latest.jar -

[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 0 items.

[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 1 items.

[main] INFO Found 1 items.

[main] INFO Vetted license information was found for all content. No further investigation is required.


On Aug 10, 2022 at 4:53:06 AM, Jan Supol <jan.supol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am sorry, perhaps I do understand this piggyback CQs wrong. The piggyback CQ is merely a duplicate CQ already filed by any other project, correct? But there are no CQs for the dependencies filed by ANY project to piggyback from.

Thanks,
--Jan
From: jakarta.ee-spec <jakarta.ee-spec-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 5:29 AM
To: Jakarta specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] [External] : Re: [BALLOT] Release Review for Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile
 
I can't see that this usage would be anything other than a piggyback CQ, which according to this:

Does not require a new CQ.

On Aug 9, 2022 at 3:07:58 PM, Jan Supol <jan.supol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
The core profile TCK has the following dependencies:

org.jboss.arquillian.container:container-se-api
org.jboss.arquillian.container:arquillian-container-test-spi
org.jboss.arquillian.junit5:arquillian-junit5-container
org.jboss.arquillian:arquillian-bom
org.testng:testng:7.4.0
net.sourceforge.htmlunit:htmlunit

But there are no CQs for those. Is the release review checking only CQs that are actually filed? Or are only the implementation projects required to file the CQs?

Cheers,
Jan
From: jakarta.ee-spec <jakarta.ee-spec-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Ivar Grimstad <ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 6:07 PM
To: Jakarta specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [External] : Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] [BALLOT] Release Review for Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile
 
+1, PMC

Ivar

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:26 PM Emily Jiang via jakarta.ee-spec <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A quick reminder for other working group members to vote! Please note this vote will be concluded on August 15, 2022!
Thank you
Emily

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 4:32 PM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Greetings Jakarta EE Specification Committee,

  I request your vote to approve and ratify the release of Jakarta EE 10 Core Profile.

  The JESP/EFSP requires a successful ballot of the Specification Committee in order to ratify the products of this release as a Final Specification (as that term is defined in the EFSP).

  The relevant materials are available here:
  - https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/495

  Per the process, this will be a fourteen-day ballot, ending on August 15, 2022, that requires a Super-majority positive vote of the Specification Committee members (note that there is no veto). Community input is welcome, but only votes cast by Specification Committee Representatives will be counted.

  The Specification Committee is composed of representatives of the Jakarta EE Working Group Member Companies (Fujitsu, IBM, Oracle, Payara, Tomitribe, Primeton, and Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co.), along with individuals who represent the EE4J PMC, Participant Members, and Committer Members.

  Specification Committee representatives, your vote is hereby requested. Please respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject). Any feedback that you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated.

--
Thanks
Emily Jiang




--
Thanks
Emily

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec


--

Ivar Grimstad

Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration. 

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec

Back to the top