| Re: [ee4j-pmc] [External] : Re: Request assistance for Jakarta Contexts and Dependency Injection |
Yes, you are right. Both specifications will have to go through the specification process with independent ballots. This is no different from existing projects producing multiple specifications. E.g. the Platform Project (that scope should be updated as well as it does not mention Core Profile at all, but that is another thread, I guess...).Here's the revised suggestion (after Ed's restructuring review of my previous suggestion):1. The CDI project writes an updated scope statement and submits it to the EMO for review.
The EMO will decide if a restructuring review is needed or not according to the EDP.
2. The CDI project presents a revised plan for CDI to the Specification CommitteeThe Specification Committee will decide if a new plan review is needed according to the EFSP.
3. The CDI project presents a plan for creation-/plan review for the new specification to the Specification CommitteeThe Specification Committee will run the ballot for the new specification according to the EFSP.IvarOn Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 10:32 PM Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:My concern is, now there will be two specifications, two ballots where before there was one. Where will we have defined the scope the distinguishes one specification from the other. I would recommend this be formalized with a restructuring review. Otherwise the scope now must cover whatever happens to either specification -- in that case, where is that scope documented? How would someone, in 5 years trace this back.
-- Ed
On 9/8/2023 12:31 AM, Ivar Grimstad via ee4j-pmc wrote:
Hi,I don't think a restructuring review is needed as long as the scope of the project is the same. The granularity of the released artifacts doesn't affect this scope, so you should be good to go with your planned releases.
Ivar
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:37 PM Scott Stark via ee4j-pmc <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It was suggested that the current split of the CDI specification into a core part and an integration part should entail a restructuring review like was done for security:_______________________________________________
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.es/reviews/restructuring-review
What is happening in CDI does not really meet the definition of a restructuring review in the EFSP:
https://www.eclipse.org/projects/efsp/?version=1.3#efsp-restructuring-review
and I don't see a restructuring review as one of the types under the create new release option. Are we fine to just create a CDI EE 4.1 release and update the CDI 4.1 release to reference that the integration chapters are being moved into the CDI EE 4.1 release?
Scott
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
--
Ivar Grimstad
Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.
_______________________________________________ ee4j-pmc mailing list ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KawPfWKywOR19PfuRxz-2lrQjokJ7FeDZufo7g7fnMrA6qv5gSKiu_uXnJav0hoAV_NhwQE3_Wt24CppiQ$--Ivar Grimstad
Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.
Ivar Grimstad
Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.