[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] Plan to publish archives of TCK refactor modules to maven
|
On 2/12/24 14:10, Alwin Joseph via
jakartaee-tck-dev wrote:
Hi
Team,
As
we have staged the new refactored versions of few standalone
TCKs at [1], it has become a requirement to publish at least
the common modules in tckrefactor [2] to maven repository.
Some
of the common modules which would be used by other TCKs for
execution are
common, runtime, signaturetest and libutil
among others.
Based
on the past discussions it was agreed to use “jakarta.tck”
as the groupID for the modules in platform TCK. The sigtest
tool was released to maven at [3] using this groupid via [4]
by Scott Stark.
-
One
of the primary questions that arises in this scenario is
whether these common modules from the platform TCK need to
be licenced with EFTL or EPL. Also do we have any other
options for naming than “jakarta.tck”?
-
Generally,
we would also want to release TCK archives to maven which
will be convenient for certification. Earlier we had
published the Jakart REST TCK(3.1.4 for EE10) with EFTL to
maven central at [5] after discussing the same in [6]. We
would like to continue publishing EFTL TCK jars or
archives to maven for other specifications as well.
1. The discussion thread about groupId seems to have settled
down with only positive responses to use "jakarta.tck". Regarding
license use, as long as we release clearly identified TCKs that
cannot be used for certification, I favor the EFTL license for the
reason of simplifying the development process of what the TCK team
builds. By "clearly identified TCKs", I mean early TCK builds,
each with a consistent groupId:Artifact:VersionId where the
VersionId reflects that the TCK is not yet ready for certification
use.
2. In the past we have staged TCKs on the eclipse.org downloads
page similar to [1]. Staged TCKs aren't sufficient for
certification requests but they are sufficient for the Spec Ballot
process as long as it is known that staged TCK snapshot contents
have not changed (if TCK contents do change, the Spec
implementation has to be retested). I think that if we build
"clearly identified TCKs" during the ballot process that we should
be to push TCK archives to Maven repositories.
The [6] feedback is good to see, do we need to check with the
Specification Committee on pushing TCK archives to Maven?
Scott
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev