Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jakarta Data 1.0 #737

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 6, 2024
Merged

Jakarta Data 1.0 #737

merged 3 commits into from
Jun 6, 2024

Conversation

KyleAure
Copy link
Contributor

@KyleAure KyleAure commented May 3, 2024

Specification PR template

When creating a specification project release review, create PRs with the content defined as follows.

Include the following in the PR:

Note: If any item does not apply, check it and mark N/A below it.

Copy link

netlify bot commented May 3, 2024

Deploy Preview for jakartaee-specifications ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 5648f70
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/jakartaee-specifications/deploys/664f480c091da60008db405a
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-737--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@ivargrimstad ivargrimstad added the release review Use this label on PRs that are filed for release review label May 5, 2024
@KyleAure KyleAure marked this pull request as ready for review May 21, 2024 14:33
@mtdelgadoa
Copy link

mtdelgadoa commented May 21, 2024

Hello all,
the EMO is trying to avoid duplication of release records, so we will be providing our feedback and comments related to this release directly here.

EMO REVIEW CHECKLIST

@Emily-Jiang while evaluating your project IP I've found a couple of issues:
https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/?sort=due_date&state=opened&search=ee4j.data&first_page_size=20

Hopefully, they will be solved soon.
We strongly suggest projects integrate the use of the Eclipse Dash License Tool into their builds.
Update: IP issues were closed. Nothing left to do.

EDP Review status: COMPLETED

EMO review checklist

PMI record: https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.data/reviews/1.0-release-review

EF Specification Process

  • Spec Committee Ballot completed

Intellectual Property Management

  • All project code has copyright and license headers correctly applied. ** EMO will scan the code at their discretion **
  • All distributed third-party content has been vetted by the IP Due Diligence process (i.e., IP Log has been approved)

Open Source Rules of Engagement

General:

  • Project is operating within the mission and scope defined in its top-level project’s charter
  • Project is operating within the bounds of its own scope
  • Project is operating in an open and transparent manner
  • Overall the project is operating according to the Eclipse Development Process.

Things to check:

  • Communication channels advertised
  • Advertised communication channels used
  • Committers are responding to questions
  • Committers are responding to issues
  • Committers are responding to pull/merge/review requests

Branding and Trademarks
The following applies when the project has a custom website.
To the best of our knowledge:

  • Project content correctly uses Eclipse Foundation trademarks
  • Project content (code and documentation) does not violate trademarks owned by other organizations

Things to check:

  • Project website uses the project's formal name in first and all prominent references
  • Project website includes a trademark attribution statement
  • Project website footers contain all necessary elements

Legal Documentation
Required files:

  • License files in all repository roots
  • README
  • CONTRIBUTING (or equivalent)

Recommended files:

See examples for Security file and Code of Conduct.

Required elements:

  • ECA is referenced/described

Recommended elements:

Metadata (PMI)

  • The formal name, e.g. "Eclipse Foo™", is used in the project title
  • The formal name including appropriate marks (e.g, "™") is used in the first mention in the text of the project description, and scope
  • The project description starts with a single paragraph that can serve as an executive summary
  • Source code repository references are up-to-date
  • Download links and information are up-to-date (see EF handbook for more information on how-to do this)
  • Communication channels listed in the PMI (i.e. public mailing list, forums, etc.)

@Emily-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

Emily-Jiang commented May 23, 2024

Mentor Spec Review Checklist

  1. Spec PR
  1. _index.md
  1. javadocs
  • Footer contains Eclipse copyright and link to license
  • ESFL license is included, usually as doc-files/speclicense.html
  • no META-INF directory in PR
  • javadocs-jar artifact matches apidocs (optional for this release)
  1. Spec PDF
  • Correct spec title
  • Version number of the form x.y, not x.y.z
  • Correct Eclipse copyright line
  • No DRAFT or SNAPSHOT
  • Correct Logo
  1. Spec HTML
  • Same as PDF
  1. TCK zip file
  • README file (optional for this release)
  • EFTL license file, preferably named LICENSE.md
  • User's Guide (or equivalent documentation)
  • How to test the Compatible Implementation(s) listed in _index.md above with the TCK (may be in UG)
  1. TCK User's Guide (or equivalent documentation)
  • Software requirements listed
  • Installation and configuration described
  • How to run tests
  • Where to file challenges
  1. Compatibility certification request
  • Request follows template
  • SHA-256 fingerprint matches staged TCK zip file
  • Request issue has certification label.
  1. TCK results summary
  • Page is hosted by Compatible Implementation project
  • Includes all information from certification request
  • Summary includes number of tests passed, failed, errors
  • SHA-256 fingerprint matches staged TCK zip file on cert request
  1. If a Release Review is required, the specification project team contacts the EMO to initiate the review by sending an email to [email protected].
    (A Release Review is not required if the current release is a Service Release based on a previously successful Major or Minor
    release as indicated by a release record on the project's Releases page, e.g., the Jakarta Servlet releases page.)

  2. Update Jakarta EE API jar

  • Update the Jakarta EE API jar by submitting a PR to the jakartaee-api project that updates the version number of your API jar file.

@Emily-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

Emily-Jiang commented May 23, 2024

Mentor review comments:

  • PDF and HTML of form jakarta-{spec}-spec-x.y.pdf

The addendum doc uses the name jakarta-method-name-query-1.0.pdf. Please update to jakarta-data-addendum-1.0.pdf and .html or merge the content into the parent doc.

data/1.0/_index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
data/1.0/_index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
data/1.0/_index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
data/1.0/_index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
data/1.0/_index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
data/1.0/_index.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Emily-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

In the PR template, there are a couple of TODOs, which made this PR incomplete. If it is required, please provide them. If not, please delete the TODOs @KyleAure

@Emily-Jiang Emily-Jiang reopened this May 23, 2024
@Emily-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

Emily-Jiang commented May 23, 2024

@KyleAure The TCK license needs to use EFTCK v1.1. The file should be License.md not license.txt. You can find the license here.

@KyleAure
Copy link
Contributor Author

KyleAure commented May 23, 2024

@Emily-Jiang I've opened a PR against data to fix the TCK-Distribution license to version 1.1 here: jakartaee/data#745

The link you provided to the license document has a copy of the license in HTML and AsciiDoc versions. I replaced license.txt with license.adoc which should be consistent with the requirements.
@edbratt - is currently in the process of asking if we need to make this update now or if it can wait for a service/major release because the same issue exists in Concurrency.

@Emily-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

Minor comment on TCK user guide: In the section 6, in the table, there are core, web, full, it would be great if you use the proper name: Core Profile, Web Profile and Platform.

@KyleAure
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Emily-Jiang I have created an issue to do this: jakartaee/data#746
This requires more than a documentation update since the documentation is bound to actual code in the TCK that uses the colloquialism full profile

@Emily-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

@Emily-Jiang I've opened a PR against data to fix the TCK-Distribution license to version 1.1 here: jakartaee/data#745

The link you provided to the license document has a copy of the license in HTML and AsciiDoc versions. I replaced license.txt with license.adoc which should be consistent with the requirements. @edbratt - is currently in the process of asking if we need to make this update now or if it can wait for a service/major release because the same issue exists in Concurrency.

We discussed on the Jakarta EE spec committee call. From now on, all new spec releases need to use the v1.1.

@KyleAure
Copy link
Contributor Author

KyleAure commented May 23, 2024

From now on, all new spec releases need to use the v1.1.

@Emily-Jiang From now on... does that mean EE 11 or EE 12?

@Emily-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

@Emily-Jiang I've opened a PR against data to fix the TCK-Distribution license to version 1.1 here: jakartaee/data#745

The link you provided to the license document has a copy of the license in HTML and AsciiDoc versions. I replaced license.txt with license.adoc which should be consistent with the requirements. @edbratt - is currently in the process of asking if we need to make this update now or if it can wait for a service/major release because the same issue exists in Concurrency.

I double checked the minutes from Jakarta EE Spec Committee meetings. Here is the latest statement regarding the license version requirement. Using TCK License v1.1 is encouraged but not mandatory. Since updating the tck jar causes CCRs to be redone, I am happy for this project to use v1.0 for this release. Any future releases must update the license to v1.1.

@Emily-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

@Emily-Jiang I have created an issue to do this: jakartaee/data#746 This requires more than a documentation update since the documentation is bound to actual code in the TCK that uses the colloquialism full profile

It is okay to have it corrected in the next release as you cannot easily release another TCK jar without a big delay.

@Emily-Jiang Emily-Jiang added the ballot Delivered to the Specification Committee for ballot label May 23, 2024
@Emily-Jiang Emily-Jiang added the approved The ballot was approved by the Specification Committee label Jun 6, 2024
@Emily-Jiang Emily-Jiang added the complete All specification tasks for release are complete label Jun 6, 2024
@Emily-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

Emily-Jiang commented Jun 6, 2024

On ballot completion, the specification committee mentor:

  • adds this final checklist to the main PR.
  • adds the approved label to the PRs, and sends out the Ballot Summary per this template to the public Jakarta EE Specification Committee email list
  • calculates the staged EFTL TCK signature and promotes it to the committee download area
    using the https://ci.eclipse.org/jakartaee-spec-committee/job/promote-release/ job. Manually editing the jenkins Build Information will help identify the build (ie. Mail 2.0 or CDI 3.0).
  • merges the specification (and apidocs) PRs, ensuring the "date:" field in the _index.md file has an appropriate value to allow publishing.
  • updates the specification page with the ballot results. This is normally done via a separate PR that should be reviewed, approved, and merged.
  • notifies the EMO of the ballot results by email to [email protected]. Just forward the ballot summary note sent earlier to the public Spec Committee email list.
  • creates an issue in the specification project that includes the following checklist for the specification project team:
    Data 1.0 final release tasks data#759

@Emily-Jiang Emily-Jiang merged commit b74bd45 into jakartaee:master Jun 6, 2024
5 checks passed
@KyleAure KyleAure deleted the data-1.0.0 branch June 7, 2024 15:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved The ballot was approved by the Specification Committee ballot Delivered to the Specification Committee for ballot complete All specification tasks for release are complete release review Use this label on PRs that are filed for release review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants