[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT][PLAN REVIEW] MicroProfile Config 3.1 - Voting ends on June 11th
|
-1 (iJUG)
Why:
This is a very tricky decision for me,
where I am unsure to vote between 0 and -1. I decided for -1 only,
because it violates Semantic Versioning, but with a version 3.1
based on MP Parent 3.1+ it tries to fix an issue (MP Config 3.0.2
for MP 6.0 was based on Jakarta EE 9.1, as MP Config 3.0.3 too),
that should have been fixed for the last release - with a Major
Release of the spec...
The Release Plan notes the following,
that sounds for me like a Patch Release only:
The goal of this release is to improve the TCKs so that they can
work well with CDI Lite.
* Improve TCKs to enable they work well with CDI Lite
* Some minor spec clarification
The version that was part of the MP 6.0
release should work well with CDI Lite already.
Minor spec clarifications sounds for me
fixing something - not enhancing or breaking it.
When I look at recent commits, some
dependencies got a Minor Release update - so fixing it with a
Minor Release sounds reasonable. But when only non-public APIs are
updated (internal dependencies), this could have been done with a
Patch Release.
But updating to MP Parent 3.1 is a
(necessary) breaking change for me - only coming too late. So this
is handled as a fix now?
I really appreciate this fix in
general!
But on my opinion this is an example on
violating semver results in violating semver...
Which brings me to: Why we do not
simply agree on being compliant to semver?
I hope we can fix this in the future.
Thanks & Best,
Jan
PS: Another question would be, how we will fix this for a MP 6.0.1
Patch Release? Add MP Config 3.1 for it or create a MP Config
3.0.4, with will be based on MP Parent 3.x?
Hello dependency hell...
Am 06.06.23 um 10:39 schrieb Emily
Jiang via microprofile-wg:
To approve
and ratify the Plan Review of the MicroProfile Config
3.1 Specification, a 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:
https://github.com/microprofile/microprofile-wg/pull/188
This
ballot runs for seven days, so it ends on June 11th,
2023. 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
Emily Jiang
on behalf of
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
