[JSR348-34] Permit Spec Leads to submit no quarterly certification report if nothing has changed Created: 29/Jul/11 Updated: 22/Sep/11 Resolved: 22/Sep/11
|Remaining Estimate:||Not Specified|
|Time Spent:||Not Specified|
|Original Estimate:||Not Specified|
Bill Shannon said, in comments on the draft document:
"I still don't think there should be a requirement to submit
I still think that starting out with the assumption that people need
|Comment by pcurran [ 05/Aug/11 ]|
|Comment by Bill Shannon [ 05/Aug/11 ]|
I say with complete confidence that Spec Leads will not reliably provide this
|Comment by pcurran [ 06/Aug/11 ]|
I understand that (some) Spec Leads won't want to do this. Some Spec Leads don't want to do most of what the JCP requires them to do (subject their Specs to EC votes, for example.) That doesn't necessarily mean that the requirements are a bad thing, or that we should turn a blind eye to violations of the process, or that the requirements should be watered down or dropped.
Bring it on!
|Comment by Bill Shannon [ 07/Aug/11 ]|
Note that generally it's not the Spec Lead who is maintaining the list of
|Comment by starksm64 [ 09/Aug/11 ]|
The current http://java.net/projects/jsr348/downloads/download/Working%20documents/JCP%20NEXT%202.8-10AUG2011-Clean.pdf version states on line 302 that this is done quarterly and at every MR. Inclusion of the MR does not seem helpful as it is likely that only the RI has passed the TCK. The next quarterly report should pick up the new implementations passing any changes introduced in the MR. When MRs do exist, the compatibility report should be specifying to what MR the testing has been done.
|Comment by pcurran [ 22/Sep/11 ]|
As Scott Stark suggested, I've removed the requirement to report at Maintenance Release times.
Re Bill Shannon's request that it permissible not to report if there's nothing new, we've discussed this several times and agreed that we want to hold the line.
So - I'm closing this. Hopefully Bill himself won't have to do anything