Thanks for the update and suggestions.
Are the different stages like EDR, PDR, PFD, Final, etc. maintained as "release" in JIRA, too?
That would certainly help to see which of them were done with each step together. We do this here in our project even on an Iteration level (JIRA5 and above is getting more and more "Agile" features, but the simple release has been around since I know it)
Thanks and Regards,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Volker Bauche < <mailto: >> wrote:
a created change log would not help much as it would not contain
any other info as those you
get from your html comparison.
The reason is that there are a lot of changes in the files in
total, but not all changes have the
- there are "real changes in the spec (like new methods, new
parameters, added exceptions)
- there is improvement of the class or method description where
the javadoc was detected
as not being comprehensive or where info (e.g. about the
behavior in a sepcial situation)
- there are corrections of typos
- there are changes done for all or many files for formal or legal
The changes interesting for you are of course only those according
to bullets 1 and 2.
Therefore the best way to trace the relevant changes in the spec
is the usage of JIRA tracking tool.
As done already for the last updated version, I have added to the
email a list of all relevant
JIRA issues below. This list can be used as a change log and is
much more useful than a created one.
The list itself (as seen below) documents the relevant changes
that have been done to the spec
since the last published version.
If you are interested in a particular change, you can open the
related JIRA issue, which includes
a complete description of the issue, a communication thread
usually between myself and the issuer
in case not everything was clear from the beginning, and at the
end as a (closing/resolved) comment
a description from my side what I have changed and where and why
(and what not and why not if
This is the way I track the changes also myself (I do not have all
changes in my mind that I have made
several weeks ago either :-) ) and it works well.
If you need assistance with JIRA, you can contact me at any time.
Hope this helps.
Best regards -
Am 10.02.2014 11:04, schrieb Lampart Thomas:
Thanks for the update and also the list of JIIRA items.
However I would like to point out one thing which also came up
in the last JSR360 expert group telco:
Its still extremely difficult to find and see the changes in
the spec. Comparing the html files also does not help much as
there is a difference in all files (at least the date).
The JSR360 speclead promised to check if there is any way to
create a complete change log. No feedback on this yet.
Nevertheless I would like to ask you for the same thing.
Having a complete change log or any means to compare the html
docs in a way showing only the real changes would be very helpful.
Looking forward to talking to the EG on Thursdays.
Sent: Samstag, 8. Februar 2014 10:20
Subject: [jsr361-observers] [jsr361-experts] PFD candidate upload
I have uploaded the latest version of the spec being the
candidate for the Proposed Fonal Draft mid of February for
review to the expert group section of the JCP.org site of our JSR.
Since last version, many minor improvements have been done,
like changed parameter names, some changed methods, added
missing exceptions and improvements in the wording of class
and method descriptions.
The most significant change is the wording abou handling of
permissions for both, MEEP applications and legacy IMP-NG
I will explain this change in an expert group meeting next
week, see invitation in separate email.
All changes are documented in the issue tracker, for a
complete list of changes, please have a look there:
For your convenience, here comes again a list of the relevant
JIRA issues that have been raised and resolved/closed since my
MESPEC-2966 Player javadoc mentions STOPPED_AT_TIME, while
no such Event type
MESPEC-2959 Remove ActionsDeniedPermission
MESPEC-2957 Application Lifecycle "Active" State
MESPEC-2954 Spec clarification request: When
with error code being KEEP_CURRENT_STATE may be thrown
MESPEC-2948 "Dependencies of optional MEEP 8 Components" table
MESPEC-2946 IMCProtocolPermission must always include
and <server value> for particular server
MESPEC-2945 MIDlet.platformRequest(String) exception clause is
MESPEC-2944 Add CellularNetwork.getByNetworkInterface method
MESPEC-2942 Section "Platform Default Character Encoding"
removed from MEEP spec or fixed
MESPEC-2939 microedition.profiles is mandated to not
MESPEC-2936 The javax.microedition.lui.Display colour
MESPEC-2935 javax.microedition.media.Manager is not final
MESPEC-2934 Provisioning needs clarification
MESPEC-2931 SWM: incorrect method name
MESPEC-2930 Synchronize installation error codes between
MESPEC-2929 Inconsistency in security for applications spec
MESPEC-2927 Event, EventPermission classes: Need to
non-acceptable values of "event name".
MESPEC-2923 Unexpected naming "CTLS" is in the "BNF for
MESPEC-2922 SWM: TaskManager has method addStatusListener
MESPEC-2920 SWM: undefined behavior for TaskManager's
MESPEC-2918 SWM: Pausing a task contradiction
MESPEC-2917 SWM: Canonical way to detect whether the Suite is
MESPEC-2916 SWM: What should happen when the app tries to
MESPEC-2915 SWM: Confusing sentence in
MESPEC-2914 SWM: Javadoc for InstallErrorCodes contains
MESPEC-2910 Unclear installation status code when
LIBlet-Name provided both
MESPEC-2909 Impossible to request ssl server connection
via IMP-NG permission
Best regards -
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
addressees and may contain confidential information. Any
unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not
be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If
you are not the intended recipient of this message, please
delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable
for damages caused by a transmitted virus
[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: PFD candidate upload