Hi Nathan,
I can attempt to take over the
process stuff although I also do poorly with it, I’m
not familiar with it and don’t understand it. I will
therefore require a lot of support from someone who
does get the process stuff. It’s not obvious to me
from the comments below what are the key things that
need doing to get this over the line can someone spell
out the tasks in simple words
😉.
I’m not sure how adding a
license to the TCK will require you to release a new
Beta of OpenLiberty although I take your word on that.
Can one of the mentors answer
the question RE: shipping a jar as part of the TCK. I
am definitely not familiar with shipping a TCK? I am
also not too familiar with the work done to bring the
TCK into this project from the old TCK project.
I will take a look at the
Javadoc generation.
Thanks
Steve
I need help with some of the comments
that have been raised (mostly around license issues)
in the release review issue under
https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/449
“The TCK must be licensed under the
EFTL. For distribution via Maven, the TCK may be dual
licensed: EFTL + EPL. Please revise the tom-level
license docs and discard the EPL + GPL v2 license
docs. Source-code license headers need not be
updated.”
Could someone who knows what they are doing with
licenses correct the above? Does this require
re-building the candidate final copy of the TCK? If
so, this will push us out a month (if we can get
everything corrected and rebuilt within a week) and
otherwise longer because our candidate compatible
implementation will need to publish another beta upon
which we can run any updated TCK.
“I will need to get clarification from the Spec.
committee about the final distribution of the TCK
materials. Current check-list requirement is that we
provide the TCK as a complete bundle .zip file that is
linked to the controlled Specifications download
folder. For CU 3.0, this would be: download.eclipse.org/jakartaee/concurrency/3.0/jakarta-concurrency-tck-3.0.0.zip
-- You can use the
CU 2.0 archive to review the contents if that is
helpful. Also please review the Mentor Checklist items
6, 7, and 8 for additional details.”
If I understood the above correctly, it sounds like
splitting the TCK out of platform and building it in
our main project might not fit with some of the rules,
although I know several other specifications are doing
the same. Our TCK is a JAR file suitable for
publishing to Maven, not a ZIP,
https://jakarta.oss.sonatype.org/content/groups/staging/jakarta/enterprise/concurrent/jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-tck/3.0.0/
Hopefully, Ed will be able to get clarification
allowing us to continue using this approach, and that
would seem to cover most of the troubles with getting
sections 6, 7, and 8 checked off, but I also see a
checkbox asking for a “EFTL license file, preferably
named LICENSE.md” which we don’t have in our TCK,
which goes back to the first issue mentioned.
“I do see that there is a docs folder in the Maven
source archive. This only includes the license file.
Lacking further documentation, I would recommend this
release use the previously created cu 2.0 TCK zip as
the proposed list of contents -- if anything is to be
discarded, we can explicitly decide to remove it.”
I don’t understand the above. Hopefully,
someone else does.
“The Java doc link to the Spec. License HTML file
yields 404 in the Netlify preview. Please correct if
needed.”
I tracked down the above to
https://deploy-preview-449--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app/specifications/concurrency/3.0/apidocs/
which has some fine print at the bottom of the page
with a copyright “license terms” broken link to
https://deploy-preview-449--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app/specifications/concurrency/3.0/apidocs/doc-files/speclicense.html
Sure enough, our generated 3.0 javadoc
jar file,
https://jakarta.oss.sonatype.org/content/groups/staging/jakarta/enterprise/concurrent/jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-api/3.0.0/jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-api-3.0.0-javadoc.jar
doesn’t have any
doc-files/speclicense.html
unlike the 2.0 javadoc jar file, which
does have it,
https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/jakarta/enterprise/concurrent/jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-api/2.0.0/jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-api-2.0.0-javadoc.jar
What changed here that got rid of this
and how to correct it? I assume this will require
re-building everything (once a fix is made) rather
than just grabbing the copy from the 2.0 jar and
checking that in.
Would someone else be willing to take
over at this point sorting out the process stuff?
This is an area that I do poorly with and I’m not even
the lead for this spec.
Hi Nathan,
As you are a
committer I think you can do those things which is why
you get can get so far. I don’t remember a lot of the
process. I see you have added Ed/Dmitry I think they are
our mentors available to us to help guide us through
this part of the process.
Steve
Given that we’re supplying the candidate
for compatible implementation and have the information
for it and the results and so forth, I’ve been trying
to fill out some of the process for the 3.0 release
based on this, and I’ve been surprised how far it
seems to be letting me go without any additional
authorization. Thus far I have the following two
issues mostly filled out (some links within the
checklists won’t be working until a week from now) and
it even allowed me to update the release record to
replace the projected release date of last October
with Feb 28 and to request a Generated IP Log,
although I have no idea if I’ve done those things
properly or if I should have included more
information. To any of you who know what you are
doing with this sort of process, please review and
correct or fill in parts that I have missed. I’m
hoping that we will be able to check off the remaining
boxes and submit the release review a week from now.
If anyone else would like to take over, I’d be happy
to let them.
Concurrency 3.0 release review issue:
https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/449
Concurrency 3.0 compatibility
certification request issue:
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/464