Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [release] ee4j.krazo 1.0.0 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton> |
| Component: | Proposals and Reviews | Assignee: | Eclipse Management Organization <emo> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | christian, ivar.grimstad, sharon.corbett |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| URL: | https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.krazo/releases/1.0.0 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Wayne Beaton
Is it your intention to graduate from Incubation Phase to Mature Phase with this release (numbering it 1.0 suggests that this is your intention)? Are there any prerequisites for building Eclipse Krazo? Building from root, I'm getting this error while attempting to build from the pom.xml in the repository root: [ERROR] Non-resolvable import POM: Could not find artifact org.mvc-spec.tck:mvc-tck-bom:pom:1.0-SNAPSHOT @ org.eclipse.krazo:krazo-tck:[unknown-version], /home/gitroot/temp/krazo/tck/pom.xml, line 77, column 25 Everything appears to build when I skip the tck module. The entry for the project website in the metadata points to "www.mvc-spec.org". The project website must point to a web property owned by the Eclipse Foundation. There's more here [1]. References to an external site (including a pointer to the MVC specification's main page) are okay, they're just not the "project website" (you can add it as an "Other Link" in the project metadata). Please update the project metadata. The Eclipse Foundation claims ownership of all project logos. Unfortunately, while Duke is licensed in manner that allows derivative works, it is not licensed in a manner which allows for those derivative works to be trademarked. Please remove Duke from the project logo. [1] https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#resources-website Hi Wayne, thanks a lot for your feedback. See my responses inline: > Is it your intention to graduate from Incubation Phase to Mature Phase with > this release (numbering it 1.0 suggests that this is your intention)? It wasn't our primary intend to also graduate at this point. Especially because AFAIK most EE4J projects weren't officially graduated yet. > Are there any prerequisites for building Eclipse Krazo? > Building from root, I'm getting this error while attempting to build from > the pom.xml in the repository root: We run the MVC 1.0 TCK as part of the Maven build. Currently, we depend on the snapshot version of the MVC 1.0 TCK. You can activate the snapshot repository like this: $ mvn -Psnapshots install We are in some kind of special situation, because the MVC 1.0 spec is still developed under the JCP. We are planning to go final with the spec in the next weeks. This will require us to submit the specification, TCK and reference implementation to the JCP. The reference implementation is Eclipse Krazo. We are planning to move the specification and the TCK to EE4J after the going final though the JCP. We are currently trying to coordinate the release of all three artifacts (spec, TCK + Krazo). Our current plan is to release all three artifacts to a staging repository and then start the Release Review for Krazo and the submission of the final material to the JCP in parallel. Does this make sense? > The entry for the project website in the metadata points to "www.mvc-spec.org". > The project website must point to a web property owned by the Eclipse Foundation. > There's more here [1]. References to an external site (including a pointer to the > MVC specification's main page) are okay, they're just not the "project website" > (you can add it as an "Other Link" in the project metadata). Please update the > project metadata. Ok, sure! We will update the metadata! > The Eclipse Foundation claims ownership of all project logos. Unfortunately, > while Duke is licensed in manner that allows derivative works, it is not licensed > in a manner which allows for those derivative works to be trademarked. Please > remove Duke from the project logo. Ok, the logo is actually the logo of the specification, but not of Eclipse Krazo. But of course we can make this more clear by removing the logo from the Eclipse site. The build should work fine now even without enabling the snapshot repository. We replaced the TCK snapshot dependency with a fixed version and already got approval for the corresponding CQ. All other issues should be fixes now. The project metadata has been adjusted, and we don't use the MVC Spec logo anywhere on the Eclipse project site. The IP Log is approved. I need PMC Approval. Hint: click on the URL above (for the release record) and then click "Send email to the PMC..." in the "Committer Tools" block on the right. We run reviews to conclude on the first and third Wednesdays of every month. You can release on the same day that the review concludes. I'm going to shift the release and corresponding review dates by one day to December 14/2019. Hi Wayne, thanks a lot. A few notes. > I need PMC Approval. Just for clarification. Do you refer to the approval of the release plan? I already requested this and got approval. But I'll ask the PMC to explicitly comment with a +1 to this issue. > We run reviews to conclude on the first and third Wednesdays of every month. You can release on the same day that the review concludes. I'm going to shift the release and corresponding review dates by one day to December 14/2019. We are in a very special situation, because we will release the MVC 1.0 API though the JCP and the reference implementation via the Eclipse Foundation. Our next steps are planned like this: 1. Release 1.0.0-RC1 of Krazo later today 2. Send all required material to the JCP for the final ballot. 3. After we got approval, I'll update two dependencies (from 1.0.0-RC1 to 1.0.0). 4. After that we are ready for the release review. Does this make sense to you? If everything works fine, we can finish step #3 before December 14/2019. Otherwise we will target the next review slot. PMC Approval: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/ee4j-pmc/msg02268.html My apologies, I completely missed the PMC approval in the thread of discussion that followed. I declare this review successful. Please continue with your release. Thanks a lot! We will proceed with the release ASAP. Just one more question to make sure that I understand correctly. This release review allows us to push our more releases (also non-service releases) for the next year, correct? So we will need to create corresponding release records of subsequent releases, but we don't need PMC approval for the release plan, an IP log and a release review, correct? (In reply to Christian Kaltepoth from comment #8) > Thanks a lot! We will proceed with the release ASAP. > > Just one more question to make sure that I understand correctly. This > release review allows us to push our more releases (also non-service > releases) for the next year, correct? So we will need to create > corresponding release records of subsequent releases, but we don't need PMC > approval for the release plan, an IP log and a release review, correct? Yes. Please create release records, but you don't need to bother with the rest. You must ensure that you're following the IP Due Diligence process. |