Do we also want to clean our gav? Artifact=spec, major.minor version =spec version
Ex: org.apache.geronimo.specs:jsp:2.1.1 Le sam. 4 mai 2019 à 21:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Le sam. 4 mai 2019 à 21:44, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> The problem is that in a git repo you can only release all at once. That >> means we would need to have a single git repo for each and every spec. That >> will be quite many... >> > > No, maven plugins was a monorepo for years and then they split. > > That said i proposed that exactly for that. At the end the release process > is more on jira dev etc, one or N repos does not compress that time. > Release prepare/perform is very fast on these repo so one or 100 is likely > the same for release manager and seems it will also enable better osgi > support and probably - hopefully - enable servicemix to stop forking the > fork ;). > > I also see svn as legacy now gitbox is mainstream and people contributing > like to see their name in - I expect maybe some help for new spec as we got > for each new version. > Fixed are generally trivial there and a good reason to use github. > > >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> > Am 04.05.2019 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]>: >> > >> > AFAIK we dont have limitations there and can do share stuff outside >> with jgit - but it is very rare - so probably sane to unify all repo to >> git. In particular since we will not do all specs probably. Cxf already >> moved to jakarta spec so we dont need jaxrs stack for instance, same for >> cdi, bval,... So we wil reduce a lot what we fork IMHO. >> > >> > Le sam. 4 mai 2019 à 21:12, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit : >> > I’d keep that in svn because of the tons of modules. >> > >> > Lg, >> > Strub >> > >> > Am 04.05.2019 um 19:28 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]>: >> > >> >> We mainly fork for legal reasons and defaults so name is probably not >> critical while we respect module names. >> >> >> >> Btw do we do it in gitbox? Svn had some limitations by the past for >> contributions. >> >> >> >> Le sam. 4 mai 2019 à 17:47, Raymond Auge <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >> One thing to consider is there may be cases where it is desirable to >> retain the javax API alongside some extra jakarta packages & types. >> >> >> >> For example, for JAX-RS you may wish to add some newly defined jakarta >> types (part of a new spec) which interact over the original javax API. >> >> >> >> The result might be that "Jakarta EE REST" (a fictitious name for next >> JAX-RS) might contain a subset of packages which, in combination with JAXRS >> v2.1, also qualifies as "Jakarata EE Rest". >> >> >> >> - Ray >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 11:26 AM Raymond Auge <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> so is this a matter of forking all the current specs into the new >> namespace? Or is the intention to completely change the packages in-place? >> >> >> >> - Ray >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:58 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hmm >> >> >> >> My understanding was it was getting under eclipse license as well and >> was fully donated but can have missed some details. >> >> >> >> If we cant reuse them let's just create new ones and fix module name >> for others. >> >> >> >> specs/ is fine since it is the same for us IMHO >> >> >> >> Le ven. 3 mai 2019 à 18:24, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit >> : >> >> No, it is not the same. microprofile specs are licensed under ALv2 and >> we know all the legal details. >> >> For the EE specs this is by far not the same. We don't even know >> exactly what parts did yet get donated by Oracle to the EF. >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> > Am 03.05.2019 um 18:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]>: >> >> > >> >> > Hi >> >> > >> >> > Idnt it the exact same as for microprofile? So we dont do? >> >> > >> >> > Le ven. 3 mai 2019 à 16:21, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >> > I've started tinkering something under specs/branches/jakarta. >> >> > It's wip but have to rush out for a few hours now. >> >> > Will continue later today. >> >> > >> >> > LieGrue, >> >> > strub >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > Am 03.05.2019 um 15:50 schrieb Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >> >> > > >> >> > > hi folks! >> >> > > >> >> > > You might have read todays post from Mike Milinkovich. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> https://eclipse-foundation.blog/2019/05/03/jakarta-ee-java-trademarks/ >> >> > > >> >> > > It basically says that Jakarta will not be able to change a single >> bit in the current spec apis under the javax.* package. >> >> > > Any change has to be done in a different package. >> >> > > The Jakarta people over at Eclipse already did some voting and the >> new package name will be jakarta.* >> >> > > >> >> > > Thus I would like to recommend to use our IP clean geronimo-specs >> to setup a new project for the EE8 specs under the jakarta.* package name. >> >> > > >> >> > > I'll go forward and create a branch starting with the most >> important specs. >> >> > > >> >> > > Any feedback and help is welcome! >> >> > > >> >> > > LieGrue, >> >> > > strub >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Raymond Augé (@rotty3000) >> >> Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay) >> >> Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance (@OSGiAlliance) >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Raymond Augé (@rotty3000) >> >> Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay) >> >> Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance (@OSGiAlliance) >> >>
