Which makes 5 +1 (3 bindings) so this vote passes, thank you guys. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 09:01, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > My own +1 > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> > > > Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 09:00, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit : > >> +1 because it allows us to more forward quickly. >> >> Over the mid- and long-term we will need a separate branch/project I >> fear. >> There are already slight differences in e.g. EJB, and a few other specs. >> But for now this is sufficient enough for people to start playing with. >> Just keep in mind that we will finally change artifact coordinates! >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> Am 28.04.2020 um 19:28 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com >> >: >> >> >> >> Le mar. 28 avr. 2020 à 18:25, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit : >> >>> As explained in the other thread: >>> >>> What is the difference between the various specs and their previous >>> versions? >>> Afaict the only difference is jakartaEE, and we WILL NOT MANAGE to do >>> all via simple replacement. This is an absolute dead end. >>> >> >> Mark, you keep saying that but each time I ask for a proof of that you >> never answer. >> Most of the spec are 1-1 (it was the deal of jakartaee8 and some spec had >> been forbidden to replace/remove anything). >> So please list the diff to let us fix that point if accurate. >> >> >>> There have been plenty of smallish methods removed in e.g. EJB and >>> servlet. But also in other specs. So we WILL need to go full scale. And I >>> also expect more changes to come for JakartaEE9. >>> >> >> >> Ok, think it is your method removal ;). >> It is not that accurate for this vote, both jars are not in the scope of >> this vote. >> >> I agree on EE9 point and here we will just create the jar from scratch as >> usual, with the right package directly, no ambiguity or discussion IMHO. >> >> >>> >>> EE8 is FINISHED. There is NO change! >>> >> >> Does not mean we don't need to release the jar, please just have a look >> to the versions of this thread (which is <1/6 of all specs), spec were >> finished when we did 1.0 but we are at 1.4 for some jars so not a point for >> me. >> >> >>> >>> All which happens is done in JakartaEE. And we have all the work done >>> since a year? >>> I could do a release of those jars today. >>> >> >> If you can do all jakarta jars I'm happy to cancel this vote as >> mentionned already, my goal was just to get jakarta artifacts for free (and >> this is what this vote does) to enable the CDI-SE/JSON-B case which starts >> to get pressure to be useable in jakarta namespace more than others. >> >> >>> Also your list of specs is not final. There is quite a few missing. >>> >> >> Not sure what you mean, I released the ones I announce for CDI SE + >> JSON-B stacks. >> >> >>> >>> So why not release from here? >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/jakarta/ >>> >> >> Not sure what would be the point to create another branch, we can keep >> specs/ still it is specs, no? >> >> However, I'm -1 to change the artifact id to contain jakarta. Worse case >> we could do geronimo-<specname>-api to try to simplify the naming, avoid a >> 2-versions based convention and be less rude to end user + use a jpms >> friendly default name (even if we put an automatic name it avoids issues in >> some envs/ide). >> >> >>> >>> Actually I'd move this to >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/jakarta-specs/trunk >>> >> >> If we would move anything I would try to use gitbox but can wait after >> the first release which is, IMHO, the most urgent. >> >> >>> >>> and then do the release. >>> >> >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 28.04.2020 um 07:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com >>> >: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Here is the vote for some of our spec with jakarta shades. >>> >>> Tags: >>> - >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec-1.2/ >>> (rev 1877103) >>> - >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.3_spec-1.3/ >>> (rev >>> 1877106) >>> - >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-atinject_1.0_spec-1.2/ >>> (rev >>> 1877109) >>> - >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-interceptor_1.2_spec-1.2/ >>> (rev >>> 1877112) >>> - >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-json_1.1_spec-1.4/ >>> (rev >>> 1877115) >>> - >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jsonb_1.0_spec-1.3/ >>> (rev >>> 1877118) >>> Dist area: >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1124 >>> Staging repo: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/specs/ >>> My key is still the same. >>> >>> Please vote: >>> >>> [ ] +1 release it >>> [ ] -1 dont' release it ${cause} >>> >>> Vote is open for 3 days or until we get enough bindings as usual. >>> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> | Github >>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >>> >>> >>> >>
