[JSR358-72] Clarify what is appropriate for a MR and what should go into a new JSR Created: 08/Apr/14  Updated: 06/May/15  Resolved: 06/May/15

Status: Closed
Project: jsr358
Component/s: Process Document
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Bug Priority: Major
Reporter: pcurran Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Won't Fix Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified


Section 5 of the Process Document is ambiguous about what is appropriate for a MR and what should go into a new JSR. Should we tighten up this language?

NOTE: Maintenance Leads are generally opposed to tighter requirements and want the freedom to make the determination themselves.

Comment by pcurran [ 06/May/15 ]

We discussed this at the April 2015 EC meeting. From the minutes:

"Patrick pointed out that Bill Shannon had recently filed a new issue suggesting a light-weight proposal for producing errata. (See JSR358-96 - Create an errata process separate from the MR process).

Such a process would be very restrictive of what could be changed. He also noted that the current Process Document language mandates that binary compatibility must not be broken.

Members agreed that under these circumstances no further clarification will be needed."

I will therefore close this as "Will Not Fix".

Comment by pcurran [ 06/May/15 ]

See my recent comment.

Generated at Mon Jan 23 18:49:28 UTC 2017 using JIRA 6.2.3#6260-sha1:63ef1d6dac3f4f4d7db4c1effd405ba38ccdc558.