Please give me a shout when the
TCK is ready for me to look at it again. Once it's ready, the
links for the
Spec. committee PR (content and
conversation) and the link pointing to the TCK for the
certification CCR issue will all
need to be updated. I'm hopeful a single zipped archive will
be produced that contains all the required material we've been
discussing. If there's still a question about anticipated
content, either reach out directly to me, or refer to the
previous TCK as a guide. It is my understanding that the
project will produce two TCKs -- one with the project license
(EPL + CDDL) and one that has the EFSL -- the two archives
only differ in this specific license file
<archive-file-name>.zip/concurrency-tck/LICENSE.md. You
can copy the license text files from the previously produced
TCKs if you like (Concurrency 2.0.1 EFSL TCK;
Concurrency 2.0.1 Project License TCK). The
specification process doesn't specifically check for the
project license TCK so, if that didn't happen -- it wouldn't
delay my starting the ballot.
The Concurrency TCK job
is a work in progress I was wanting to work on that to
package the license file. I’ll do some more on it over the
Easter break.
Steve
With the deadline for specification TCKs
getting closer, I tried submitting a couple of builds to
determine if everything is being packaged correctly so
that we can proceed to run the TCK and report results.
Unfortunately, more help is still needed from those who
know what they are doing with the process and CI. I
copied Steve who was going to try to help get us through
the former and Arjan who has offered to help with the
latter although last I heard was still having trouble
getting access to the CI.
Here are the latest builds that I submitted,
1.
Concurrency
API release build (which also packages the TCK for maven):
https://ci.eclipse.org/cu/job/concurrency-api-release-build/65/
This seems to have done well with the API
jar:
https://jakarta.oss.sonatype.org/content/groups/staging/jakarta/enterprise/concurrent/jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-api/3.0.0/
but the TCK jar appears to be missing the
license file,
https://jakarta.oss.sonatype.org/content/groups/staging/jakarta/enterprise/concurrent/jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-tck/3.0.0/
2.
Concurrency
TCK master build (I assume this is what builds the TCK zip
for the official run, but I really don’t know)
https://ci.eclipse.org/cu/job/Concurrency%20TCK%20Master%20Build/24/console
It complains about not being able to find snapshot builds on staging,
jakarta.enterprise.concurrent:jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-tck:jar:3.0.0-SNAPSHOT: Could not find artifact jakarta.enterprise.concurrent:jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-api:jar:3.0.0-SNAPSHOT in sonatype-nexus-staging
but I didn’t even want to build a snapshot. I
was trying to build a candidate for final. I couldn’t
figure out way to submit this with parameters that say to
use 3.0.0 rather than snapshot, so maybe the problem is
that I don’t know how to use it.
Sorry, I
don't know if this is still an issue -- in the Platform
TCK, their build process creates two sets of TCKs -- one
that packages the release ZIP with the project license
(EPL + GPL v2 w/CpE) and another that uses the EFTL
license. They do NOT modify any of the source license
headers, nor anything else that I know of. So, the only
change is to swap out the "top-level" LICENSE.md file.
This could be done as a simple substitution, or as part of
your build pipeline. As a reference example, compare the
top directory in soap-tck-3.0.0.zip/soap-tck/LICENSE.md
vs. jakarta-soap-tck-3.0.0.zip/soap-tck/LICENSe.md in
1.
EFTL SOAP Attachments TCK
2.
EPL SOAP Attachments TCK
You should
see that there are no differences between these two
archives except for that license file. (The file names do
differ but that's more a convenience to tell the two apart
than anything else.)
Since Eclipse
Foundation hasn't provided triple license text/mark-down
files, I recommend you just make two distributions. The
EFTL copy will be copied up to the "official"
specification download folder. The project license TCK can
be used by anyone but doesn't contain the provisions
necessary for application of the actual certification
approval.
This should
not have any impact on any product bits although
technically, for certification, you must use the TCK from
the release that includes the EFTL and when you submit
your certification, you will need to reference the EFTL,
final (or proposed final) TCK. So, there may be additional
testing obligations, but the TCKs shouldn't be included in
anything you ship.
As for
producing the TCK -- (if that's what you mean by
"shipping") -- you may make the EPL TCK available anywhere
you like. Some projects use the Eclipse download server.
Some project rename the extension to .jar and push the zip
to Maven central. As for the EPL copy, our process
requires that the proposed file TCK be pushed to the
eclipse download site -- the Spec. committee mentor (me)
will push it up to the official download folder, once the
ballot is completed. The Platform TCK project just leaves
these released TCKs on their download server.
For the
purposes of certification -- what is important is that you
use tests that come the file that has the same SHA sum
hash. This doesn't change if the file is moved from one
download location to another, nor even if the file name
changes. But the hash will change if any of the content
changes. So -- once you have the proposed file TCK zip --
make your final certification test run, capture the
results -- With those, you can complete the CCR issue
using the SHA sum hash and that won't change by virtue of
any of the final release processing we do once the Spec.
ballot is completed so ... there won't be any need to
re-run the tests, once the TCK zip is moved into it's
final d/l spot.
Let me know
if you have more questions.
-- Ed
On 3/25/2022 7:53 AM, Scott Marlow wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!fTBjQOsqc5qafs1zMjLGtBiyj3IJewpRKAoFnJOm-qaoJ5aOTeEudL8KuHOroZE$