On 06/10/18 03:52, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:03 PM Mark Thomas <markt@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:markt@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A quick update on this:
>
> The instance has been created and should be fully configured as far as
> the infrastructure folks are concerned.
>
> I have created builds for the master branch with Java 8 and Java latest
> (currently Java 10.0.2) and both builds are green.
>
> I have also created a release build. This is essentially a copy of the
> JSONP release build edited for Servlet. It is completely untested.
>
>
> The Jenkins / build list is currently:
>
> - Create a build for the EE4J_8 branch with Java 8
>
>
> I have set up jobs for this branch against both JDK8 and the latest JDK.
Great.
> - Test the release build and get it to the state where it can produce
> snapshot releases
>
> The first one of those is easy. I have no idea how much work is involved
> in the second.
>
>
> I will have a look at the release job today, although I don't think we
> will really want to test it out until we are actually ready to do a release.
>
>
>
> On a related topic have been going through the various EE4J projects I
> am involved in looking at the changes that have been made and checking
> the other projects have also made them. I have a few things left to
> check for Servlet that I hope to get to today / over the weekend.
>
> There is also an outstanding PR to bring the EE4J_8 branch in line with
> master. At this point, these two should be the same as we aren't making
> any API / functional changes. There is a PR for most of this. I suspect
> there will be a few more changes as we work towards the release.
>
>
> I don't know if we should do this.
>
> According to https://www.eclipse.org/ee4j/news/?date=2018-02-16 the
> EE4J_8 branch should only have critical bug fixes, which I think means
> we should leave the formatting changes till the next release of the
> platform.
It is a strong recommendation from the PMC so the project has some leeway.
I agree we should not be:
- changing the public API
- changing the behaviour
I think anything else we can do is fair game.
None of the changes are critical but I do think fixing things like:
- broken Javadoc
- missing Javadoc elements
- unused imports
- missing annotations
- fixing IDE warnings
helps create a positive impression of the health of the project when
folks look at the source.
If other projects have been doing this then I am ok with it.
The other open issue in terms of what needs to be included is the automatic-module-name manifest entry.
There was a request from Dmitry at [1] to hold off for now, however it appears JAX-RS has released with it. There is also a discussion on the pmc list about what naming convention should be adopted [2].
I am not really sure exactly what we should do here, I am leaning towards pushing forward towards a release without an automatic module name, but if a decision is made by the PMC before we are ready to release we can re-evaluate then.
If a decision is made after the first release on what the module name should be then we can always do a maintenance release to include it.
Stuart
Mark
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> Help, especially to progress the release build, very welcome.
>
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> servlet-dev mailing list
> servlet-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:servlet-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/servlet-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> servlet-dev mailing list
> servlet-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/servlet-dev
>
_______________________________________________
servlet-dev mailing list
servlet-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/servlet-dev
