| Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] Finalizing the TCKs |
I saw already a couple of entries in the doodle pool.I think Monday, Aug 24 noon PT would be a good time to check calendar matches and send the meeting invite for those who filled the doodle pool.--RegardsCesar Hernandez_______________________________________________On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 3:37 PM Cesar Hernandez <chernandez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi all!,I recall we started back in June a Jakarta community outreach for TCK work [1] in the jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list.This had an initial outcome of participation in a Community Call explaining what the TCK was and engaging the community to participate.Currently, we have a pending dedicated Jakarta Tech Talk about it.Catching up with this and other threads, It seems TCK documentation wiki has been updated with fresh content [2] that can help to guide community participation.I want to propose a 45 min call next week with cc: jakarta.ee-community mailing list in order to iron the strategy to facilitate and organize the collaboration.I just created this doodle to agree on a date and time in case you find this useful and want to collaborate:--RegardsCesar HernandezOn Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:46 PM Amelia Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I meant to say, the feature to add Contributors to any git project under the Eclipse Foundation is a reality after its revival in Q1 of 2019 from an almost 4 years sleep - bug.The bug took +8 months (well worth time prioritizing). For that time & the result, I am most thankful to Chris and his web team. Chris is cc'd here as well -- you are amazing Chris!!!I am now motivated to get back to that blog, finish it & publish it this month to get more notice that such formidable access exists and it welcomes active contributors to own their weight in any project without being debt to the Committers of the project. :)Happy wknd Scott and Jakartees,Amelia Eiras_______________________________________________On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:34 PM Amelia Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hola Scott,I have been researching a few moments before closing my days to see a way around this.In MicroProfile though I am a committer, submitting PRs are the way to go while collaborating on documentations. It is easy after forking the repo on my github account.True that- to copy/paste changes into a git issue to have others with access merge those contributions is poor at best OSS etique & won't enhance nor welcome others to collaborate.Current issue is a positive step forward for the Jakarta EE TCK about how it chooses to manage community contributions updates in the wiki while still keeping healthy control of the space.Early this year, I -- with the help of wonderful Christopher Guindon - Manager, Web Development | Eclipse Foundation and a few others (not only MicroProfilers)~20 individuals in the ticket contributing, we revived a +4 years old github bug that affects positively all the Contributors under the EF: Bug 483563 - Allow assignment of Github issues to contributorsSince the middle of December last year, active contributors in any Eclipse project can be added to any Repo. It just need to be executed by the Project itself.I owe (got sidetracked with the heavy duty work collaborating on the creation of the MP working group + MP is prohibit from releasing MP 4.0 so the blog took a step back as we have no use for it YET] Chris and the EF web team the publishing of that blog still, title: [MP Blog]Adding Contributors to the MP Repository #230How about we use the draft of the blog to pilot with the Jakarta EE TCK adding me as a contributor to the Repo itself. The steps are simple enough but THIS awesome new contributors feature have yet to be tested. I welcomed you to do some research using the bug tracing -- a few other tickets were opened/closed to fix the issue and still protect the projects. :)I appreciate you, your follow up shows much care Scott, you are awesome! -- lets try stuff, fail fast, learn/unlearn and re-try, openly!Amelia EirasOn Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:38 PM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/5/20 3:21 PM, Amelia Eiras wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Thank you for sending the links.
> I will start the follow-up via the Wikis later today. Thank YOU! :)
Amelia,
I found
https://docs.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/adding-or-editing-wiki-pages#adding-or-editing-wiki-pages-locally
today and am sharing the link here in case it helps you/others.
Following the article instructions I could clone
git@xxxxxxxxxx:eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck.wiki.git but didn't seem able
to clone https://github.com/scottmarlow/jakartaee-tck.wiki.git which was
disappointing.
I haven't yet found out if the wiki web interface perhaps allows
non-committers to create pull requests on the fly perhaps somehow.
Scott
>
> Amelia Eiras
> twitter.com/ameliaeiras <https://twitter.com/ameliaeiras>
> Tribe:http://tomitribe.com <http://tomitribe.com/>
> https://tribestream.io <https://tribestream.io/>
> OSS:http://microprofile.io https://jakarta.ee
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:50 AM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hola Amelia,
>
> I removed the platform ml from this response as Kevin Sutter already
> included enough information in his response.
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:27 PM Amelia Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hola Scott,
>
> I am happy to help the wiki write-up after it is started :)
>
>
> I started some draft updates to create a few levels of landing pages
> via https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/wiki. Please do
> let me know if you are able to create a pull request for the wiki.
> I tried googling for how non-committers could do that but didn't
> find a reasonable solution.
>
> I added a question to the Q+A sub-page about how to add questions
> and answered that questions can be added by sending mail to the
> Platform TCK mailing list.
>
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/wiki/Jakarta-EE-9-Platform-TCK-Questions---Answers
>
>
> Sadly, I always have a conflict at 8am PDT on Tuesdays so I
> cannot join the Platform calls, however like you said, there is
> no need to wait to start lowering the bar to entry.
>
>
> +1
>
> I am most happy to work with you and other Jakartees on the
> documentation.
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Lets not wait to have everything figured out. If we start the
> write up, it is most likely that #ossDOERs by jumping into help
> with TCK, could help improve the process itself, I see them
> submitting PRs against the documenation that in turn helps to
> clarify the reality of HOW TCK Contributing Works. Mojo is:
> try, fail-fast & openly, learn, unlearn & reiterate.
>
>
> +1
>
>
> Please pull me in when starting that write-up. See you in git,
> my ID: aeiras.
>
>
> I included "@aeiras" in the comment for a wiki page update, I'm not
> sure if that is ignored or processed by github.
>
>
> Abrazos,
>
> Amelia Eiras
> twitter.com/ameliaeiras <https://twitter.com/ameliaeiras>
> Tribe:http://tomitribe.com <http://tomitribe.com/>
> https://tribestream.io <https://tribestream.io/>
> OSS:http://microprofile.io https://jakarta.ee
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 9:23 AM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Amelia,
>
> Adding platform-dev ml...
>
> The Platform call wasn't scheduled for today, so perhaps
> next week there
> can be discussion about the below. I did think more about
> this and
> would like to propose a few adjustments to give the
> community enough
> time to give feedback but also meet our schedule constraints.
>
> With regard to Standalone TCK deliverables, we can easily
> stage new
> builds of each Standalone TCKs, however we can only promote
> a specific
> versioned Standalone TCK once (with the last promoted TCK
> version
> targeted for EE 9 final release).
>
> So from a TCK perspective, I propose that contributors
> review TCK
> documentation and create pull requests over the next N days,
> where N is
> to be discussed further (perhaps N could be 10 calendar days
> including
> some non-working days or some other duration yet to be
> discussed).
>
> Whatever N is for the final date to create TCK documentation
> pull
> requests by, each SPEC API ballot could work off of an
> initial promoted
> TCK (e.g. assuming no TCK test failures and initial TCK doc
> changes are
> merged).
>
> If subsequent TCK documentation pull requests come in after
> the SPEC API
> ballot, the SPEC lead (or TCK team) could push a new staged
> Standalone
> TCK update that could then be promoted with the updated TCK
> documentation.
>
> The only negative is that each Standalone TCK that is
> promoted after the
> respective SPEC API ballot is approved, would need to be
> copied to
> http://download.eclipse.org/jakartaee (along with SHA sum).
>
> I suggest that we start following ^ this week if no there
> are no reasons
> presented as to why we cannot abide by the current schedule
> for SPEC API
> ballots and also still merge in further TCK documentation
> changes from
> the community (while we have time left for doing that after
> SPEC API
> ballots complete but before EE 9 is final).
>
> More responses inline below.
>
> On 8/3/20 6:24 PM, Amelia Eiras wrote:
> > Scott,
> >
> > I think your explanation is quite beneficial for
> tomorrow's platform
> > call, beyond that call and its minutes.
> > Releases have a deadline, that means that expectations
> need to be fluid
> > yet clearly stated to simplify the process of the
> release. I see you as
> > a Mentor for this thread. :)
>
> Thank you, I think that we all desire to bring more
> community to the
> Jakarta EE Platform TCK. IMO, we did very well with getting
> community
> contributions for the big bang "EE 8 ==> EE 9" changes but
> not as much
> for other TCK changes, which could be a number of reasons
> (including
> documentation/wiki need to provide more 'how thinks work'
> guidance to
> developers.)
>
> >
> > After I read your reply on the why of time, I finally
> understood the
> > workaround time-limits, the steps 1, 2... when dealing
> with the TCK.
> > I would go further and ask for us to start the wiki under
> the TCK
> > documenting this.
>
> +1 I have been thinking that we should update the initial
> wiki page to
> be a proper landing page that links to sub-topics, so we can
> have EE 9
> development process topics as well as user oriented topics
> (really,
> should have no friction against adding any type of
> sub-topics with no
> limit on amount of nesting).
>
> > With Jakarta EE, the TCK is public yet its process is
> > a complete vacuum with bare to none documentation on what
> to expect when
> > contributing to it.
>
> Yes, it is a lot different developing the TCK than just
> using it, many
> of the contributors may not be users of the TCKs yet, for those
> contributors it is even harder to understand the TCK internals.
>
> >
> > Up until now, we have never discussed the bare minimum
> expectations when
> > TCK contributed. We ought to fix that.
>
> +1
>
> > Related to Jakarta EE contributing-- last week, I was
> candidly asked via
> > a Java public forum on a private slack group how much
> time was ok to
> > "wait" for a PR review/merge or git issue accomplishment
> under the
> > Jakarta EE project *before asking for help*. I said 72hrs
> or so,
> > patience and respect to Contributors of the project means
> we understand
> > that their time, YOUR, MINE, OURS, is the most precious
> commodity & a
> > contract if choosing to be a #ossDOER that wants to have
> impactful
> > contributions.
> >
> > Lastly, I believe candid conversations lead such as the
> one you are
> > beautifully facilitating lead to documentation.
> Brainstorming and
> > exchanges such as these ought to make you and I scalable.
>
> +100 and thanks for taking the time to contribute here!
>
> I see good
> > ideas, values from those that care to share *a
> > direct acknowledgement to scale stuff that is worth
> broadening. * THAT I
> > CARE THE MOST.
>
> +100
> >
> > Hugs,
>
> Ditto and have a great day! :-)
>
> Scott
>
> >
> > Amelia Eiras
> > twitter.com/ameliaeiras <http://twitter.com/ameliaeiras>
> <https://twitter.com/ameliaeiras>
> > Tribe:http://tomitribe.com <http://tomitribe.com/>
> > https://tribestream.io <https://tribestream.io/>
> > OSS:http://microprofile.io https://jakarta.ee
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:03 PM Scott Marlow
> <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:59 PM Amelia Eiras
> <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hola Scott,
> >
> >
> > Hola Amelia,
> >
> > Thanks for responding!
> >
> >
> > I have bias feedback on how the window to
> receive feedback ought
> > to be set up.
> > Bare with me and thanks for brainstorming after
> you consume this
> > message.
> >
> > If an issue/PR is sent on Friday, do we expect
> the contributors
> > to work on it over the weekend?
> >
> >
> > I agree that we do not want them to work on it over
> the weekend.
> >
> > If yes, why is that?
> >
> > Should we assume that contributions ought to
> happen during the
> > work week instead?
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > WHY?
> > the 72 hours period for example ought not to
> contain the wknd.
> >
> >
> > Whether it is 78 hours or some other amount of time,
> we still may
> > have additional standalone TCK documentation pull
> requests that come
> > in after we have "promotion" (e.g. copied to
> >
> https://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/jakartaee-tck/jakartaee9-eftl/promoted/jakarta-annotations-tck-2.0.0.zip)
> > of the respective versioned TCK. For example, if
> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/issues/382
> is promoted
> > on Wednesday instead of Tuesday, a contributor could
> notice on
> > Thursday that an important TCK documentation should
> be made, that we
> > could increment the version
> to jakarta-annotations-tck-2.0.1.zip and
> > stage/promote that.
> >
> > Fyi, the "stage" term refers to copying the latest
> nightly TCK build
> > to
> >
> https://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/jakartaee-tck/jakartaee9-eftl/staged-900
> > and "promotion" refers to creating a versioned TCK.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any problems with promoting multiple
> versions of a
> > TCK, however there could be time constraints that
> dictate whether to
> > promote a specific TCK again.
> >
> >
> > We as a community can contribute any day we
> choose to, HOWEVER
> > we ought to be aware AND PROTECTIVE that weekends
> for many of us
> > are free of professional work-devices.
> >
> >
> > Another approach could be to start the time clock now
> by emailing
> > all of the various SPEC API contributors that their
> feedback on the
> > TCK documentation contained in the respective TCK zip in
> >
> https://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/jakartaee-tck/jakartaee9-eftl/staged-900
> > is welcome in the form of pull requests on
> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck. The
> advantage of
> > this approach is that contributors would have more
> time to contribute.
> >
> > Another advantage of emailing all SPEC API
> contributors now is that
> > we don't yet have issues for all of the SPEC API TCKs
> created yet,
> > so sending a generic email to all could help get the
> message out
> > sooner so the TCK documentation pull requests can
> come in sooner.
> >
> >
> > As such, I would recommend that the August 4th
> gets moved to
> > later to honor that weekend ought not to be
> included (yet are
> > awesome plus to have) on the window to contribute.
> >
> >
> > Also of importance is to keep the SPEC API ballots
> moving along and
> > not getting blocked on the promotion of TCKs, as well
> as not getting
> > blocked on the TCK team creating the tracking issues
> for promoting TCKs.
> >
> > So, if we delay the August 4th TCK promotions until
> August 6th and
> > send generic email today to all of the SPEC API
> mailing lists to
> > review their respective staged TCK zips (and create
> pull requests on
> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck for further
> changes
> > that are needed), that might be more helpful.
> >
> > The following schedule (from Ed's original email from
> this thread)
> > is what we are trying to achieve with regard to
> promoting the TCKs:
> >
> > "
> >
> > * Wave 0 (Any time)
> >
> > * Concurrency
> > * Messaging
> > * Persistence
> > * (From the Platform TCK)
> > o Web Services Metadata
> >
> > * Wave 1 (Any time)
> >
> > * Annotations
> > * _expression_ Language
> > * JSON Processing
> > * Servlet
> > * SOAP with Attachments
> > * WebSocket
> >
> > * Wave 2 (Planned to start July 28)
> >
> > * Authentication
> > * Authorization
> > * JSON Binding
> > * Server Pages
> >
> > * Wave 3 (Planned to start Aug 5)
> >
> > * XML Web Services
> >
> > * Wave 4 (Planned to start Aug 11)
> >
> > * RESTful Web Services
> > * Transaction
> >
> > * Wave 5 (Planned to start Aug 18)
> >
> > * Connectors
> > * Standard Tag Library
> > * (From the Platform TCK)
> > o Enterprise Beans
> > o Enterprise Web Services
> >
> > * Wave 6 (Planned to start Aug 25
> >
> > * Security
> > * Server Faces
> >
> > * Wave 7 (Planned to start Aug 31)
> >
> > * Jakarta EE Web Profile
> > * Jakarta EE Platform
> >
> > "
> >
> >
> >
> > Stay awesome formidable #ossDOER and happy August
> to everyone here,
> >
> >
> > Thanks, you too! :-)
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > Amelia Eiras
> > twitter.com/ameliaeiras <http://twitter.com/ameliaeiras>
> <https://twitter.com/ameliaeiras>
> > Tribe:http://tomitribe.com <http://tomitribe.com/>
> > https://tribestream.io <https://tribestream.io/>
> > OSS:http://microprofile.io https://jakarta.ee
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:35 AM Scott Marlow
> <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:57 PM Scott Marlow
> > <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >
> > The committer teams need to review the
> staged TCK
> > content and give their
> > +1 for the relevant TCK bundle to be
> promoted. The
> > promotion will
> > freeze the TCK for release, which
> essentially means it
> > is frozen. If a
> > blocking change in a TCK is needed, we
> will re-release
> > with a
> > incremented version number as mentioned
> below.
> >
> > The possible states that TCKs can
> transition through are:
> >
> > * Staged via
> >
> https://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/jakartaee-tck/jakartaee9-eftl/staged-900
> >
> > (each TCK zip may be updated multiple times).
> >
> > * Promoted via
> >
> https://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/jakartaee-tck/jakartaee9-eftl/promoted
> >
> > (each versioned TCK zip is frozen
> immediately, further
> > changes can only
> > appear via a version number increment).
> >
> > * Final release for Jakarta EE 9 via
> > https://download.eclipse.org/jakartaee/...
> >
> >
> > On 7/27/20 11:21 AM, Ed Bratt wrote:
> > > Due to how the Specification Committee
> has defined
> > the process, any
> > > change to the TCK requires are
> re-release -- Docs.
> > change, Exclude List
> > > change, anything else that would
> change content
> > and/or generate a build
> > > forces a version number increment.
> > >
> > > I think the procedures described below
> will allow us
> > to stop builds,
> > > once a Specification has gone to
> ballot. So, that's
> > my first concern. We
> > > just need to follow the ballot
> progress closely and
> > not inadvertently
> > > create an update that wasn't asked for.
> >
> > From a process point of view, I think
> that the SPEC API
> > representative/lead/committers can help
> determine when
> > it is time for
> > the relevant TCK to transition from
> Staged to Promoted
> > state.
> >
> > Question, if we don't hear feedback from
> a SPEC lead or
> > committers, who
> > can make the decision to proceed with
> Promoting the
> > TCK? Also how long
> > should we wait for feedback?
> >
> >
> > There is no perfect amount of time to wait
> for feedback, if
> > we make it too short, we may need to
> stage/promote a newer
> > standalone TCK version for further changes.
> If we make it
> > too long, we may never hear feedback and could
> > jeopardize the EE 9 schedule.
> >
> > I'm thinking that we can wait a few days
> after pinging the
> > SPEC API teams (whether it is sending email
> or pinging
> > lead(s)).
> >
> > For example, for
> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/issues/382 we
> > sent email to ca-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ca-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:ca-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ca-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > on Friday July 31 and will
> > promote jakarta-annotations-tck-2.0.0.zip
> first thing on
> > Tuesday August 4, 2020 if we do not hear
> feedback.
> >
> > Worse case, we could later stage
> > a jakarta-annotations-tck-2.0.1.zip if
> further TCK pull
> > requests for documentation changes are important.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > Good news, it is now time for Staged
> > jakarta-annotations-tck-2.0.0.zip
> > to be reviewed via
> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/issues/382.
> > Feedback is
> > welcome (link to staged TCK zip is in the
> issue)!
> >
> > Also good news, it is now time for Staged
> > jakarta-_expression_-language-tck-4.0.0.zip
> to be reviewed
> > via
> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/issues/387.
> >
> > Once the relevant SPEC API lead and/or
> committers has
> > given their
> > approval via the relevant jakartaee-tck
> issue, we will
> > Promote the
> > related TCK.
> >
> > We have created some other similar
> "Review and promote "
> > tracking issues
> > for other TCKs but help is needed to
> created tracking
> > issues for other
> > TCKs still (open
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+Review+and+promote
> >
> > for current issues).
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
> > jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
> > jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
> > jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
> > jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev
> >
>
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev