| Re: [jakartaee-spec-project-leads] Looking for a couple of Wave:0 and Wave:1 volunteers... |
I'm starting to pull these together but progress is essentially blocked
by the lack of TCK.
Mark
On 12/03/2020 13:01, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> Excellent! Thanks so much for volunteering, Mark.
>
> The next step would be to create the Draft PRs for the Specification
> repo. <https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pulls> TheManaged
> Beans PR <https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/135>is
> available as an example. You will also need the corresponding Apidocs
> PR since EL has an API that generates javadoc.
>
> I took a look at your PR for the TCK. Scott Marlow has approved it, so
> it's clear to be merged. But, Bill had a question about removing old
> signature files. I posted a question back to the PR, but I will also
> post a general question to the Platform mailing list to get that clarified.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Kevin Sutter
> STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
> e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
> phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
> <https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pulls>https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pulls
>
>
> From: Mark Thomas <markt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: 03/12/2020 02:59
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakartaee-spec-project-leads] Looking
> for a couple of Wave:0 and Wave:1 volunteers...
> Sent by: jakartaee-spec-project-leads-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Kevin,
>
> EL-API should be in a position to do this.
>
> I'm currently doing a final read of the specification document. Once
> that is done the only remaining task is the TCK.
>
> A PR [1] was provided to the TCK project for EL on 3rd Feb. Once that is
> merged and a standalone TCK release is available then we should have
> everything required.
>
> Mark
>
> [1] https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/pull/150
>
>
> On 11/03/2020 22:04, Kevin Sutter wrote:
>> As I was looking at the overall work effort required to deliver Jakarta
>> EE 9 by the end of June, I see that the Wave:1 deliverables would need
>> to start their official ballots by *March 24*
>> <https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-ee4j/projects/17#card-34451812>.
>> (Note, all of this is assuming a sequential ordering of our Wave
>> deliverables, which is not always the case. But, it's the worse case,
>> so I'm going with it for this exercise.)
>>
>> Since March 24 is less than two weeks away, I'd like to get some
>> Specification Project volunteers to work through the process of
>> delivering their materials for ballot. I figured some of the Wave:0 and
>> Wave:1 Projects would be the best ones to pick from.
>>
>> Wave:0
>> https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-ee4j/projects/17?card_filter_query=label%3Awave%3A0
>> Wave:1
>> https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-ee4j/projects/17?card_filter_query=label%3Awave%3A1
>>
>> Once we start to work through the wrinkles of preparing for this ballot
>> process, then we can maybe adjust the schedule deadlines to better align
>> with reality.
>>
>> For those of you not familiar with this balloting process, here are the
>> official requirements
>> <https://jakarta.ee/committees/specification/operations/#creating_a_final_specification>.
>> But, in a nutshell, you would need your final API, TCK, and Compatible
>> Implementation ready to release to Maven. If your Project is also
>> planning to provide a Specification update based on the contributed
>> Specification source, then your final Specification would also be
>> required. There are a few Specification Projects in Waves 0 and 1 with
>> at least 6 out of the 11 checkboxes marked. Can we get any volunteers
>> from these Projects to help push these across the ballot finish line?
>> (Although much of the actual work can be provided by Contributors, the
>> final push with the Jenkins builds and Maven releases would need to be
>> done by Committers.)
>>
>> Another caveat... This request would be for Projects not dependent on
>> Glassfish as their Compatible Implementation. Glassfish will not be
>> ready in time for this initial push. I am focusing on Projects that
>> have independent, standalone Compatible Implementations. Those
>> Implementations may eventuall feed into the Glassfish deliverable. But,
>> they can also be used as a standalone Compatible Implementation for
>> testing and verification purposes.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Kevin Sutter
>> STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
>> e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
>> phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jakartaee-spec-project-leads mailing list
>> jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-spec-project-leads
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jakartaee-spec-project-leads mailing list
> jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-spec-project-leads
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jakartaee-spec-project-leads mailing list
> jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-spec-project-leads
>
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-spec-project-leads mailing list
jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-spec-project-leads