Re: [ee4j-pmc] Jakarta EE releases in Maven Central

[Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Lukas Jungmann wrote on 11/02/2018 12:40 PM:
> On 11/2/18 8:13 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>> Lukas Jungmann wrote on 11/02/2018 11:15 AM:
>>> On 11/2/18 6:32 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>>>> Until we have Jakarta EE versions of all these specifications, the
>>>> specification
>>>> vendor is still Oracle since these artifacts are conforming to the existing JCP
>>>> specifications.
>>>
>>> This sounds logical to me. OTOH implication is the opposite of what has been
>>> said in https://www.eclipse.org/lists/ee4j-build/msg00440.html
>>>
>>> So I'm confused now... Luckily there seems to be only 2 options to choose from.
>>
>> That message doesn't talk about the specification at all.  It's fine to
>> change the implementation vendor to Eclipse.
> 
> it does not talk about it directly, it's more or less a consequence of that - if
> vendor.name is changed as it says ie here:
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxr-api/blob/master/pom.xml#L37
> 
> then it will be used as Specification-Vendor in manifest here:
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxr-api/blob/master/pom.xml#L169
> 
> analogically:
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jax-rpc-api/blob/master/pom.xml#L35
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jax-rpc-api/blob/master/pom.xml#L147

Yes, the interactions between these settings can be subtle and non-obvious.

>>>> And I don't believe Oracle has assigned copyright in the javadocs to the
>>>> Eclipse Foundation so the copyright for the javadocs should reflect the
>>>> copyright owners of the corresponding source files, predominantly Oracle.
>>>
>>> maven's javadoc plugin defaults to:
>>>
>>> Copyright © {inceptionYear}–{currentYear} {organizationName}. All
>>> rights reserved.
>>>
>>> organizationName defaults to Eclipse Foundation, inceptionYear to 2017 and
>>> currentYear to 2018 if inherited from parent and not overridden.
>>>
>>> Based on what you've said, it should be overriden to:
>>> Copyright © originalYear–{currentYear} Oracle. All rights reserved.
>>>
>>> Right? Anyway, one more item to check while double-checking EE4J_8 branches
>>> before passing them to jenkins...
>>
>> I think that's a function of how you configure the Maven javadoc plugin.
>> But yes, at this point, I think the copyright owner should be Oracle, and
>> possibly others who have contributed.
> 
> the point is that there are projects which do not have explicitly defined
> javadoc configuration with the footer definition, so the javadoc plugin
> configuration with footer override should be added where missing. In the other
> words - no explicit configuration in the project => wrong copyright footer in
> generated javadoc

Yes, good point.

We really need a "lint" tool to check that all these configurations are done
currently and having the intended effect.