Steps left for releasing MicroProfile 1.2

[Kevin Sutter]

Hi,
We're getting down to the wire for completing the components that make up MicroProfile 1.2.  The complete process is documented here, but here's a quick summary of the remaining steps....

• Contribution Questionnaires
  I have documented this process in our wiki...  Each component needs to evaluate their dependencies and figure out if we have already gotten clearance, and if not request it.  For the MP 1.1 release, I scanned the pom's and created the CQs.  If I can get the individual components to review the their dependencies and help figure out the differences to submit, it will save us all some time.  I plan to start creating this CQs tomorrow and submitting them for review.
  
• Component IP Logs
  All of the IP Log generations will create the same content for the macro MicroProfile project.  But, each component needs to submit the IP Log to kick off the Review process for their proposed release.  Since the IP reviews happen the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of each month, I would suggest that each component selects Sept 6 as their review date.  From this page, select your respective component release (you'll see a warning about not enough time for a review).  You can adjust the release date to Sept 6 as well.  On the right hand side, select "Generate IP Log".  Make sure to select your respective component release and click Submit for Review.
• Project IP Logs
  I'll be doing the same thing for the MicroProfile 1.2 release once I get the CQs created.
  
• Monitoring the Release process
  After you have created and submitted the Reviews, continue to monitor the process.  If questions are raised, please respond to them in a timely manner.  The EMO IP team is very good to work with and have been very helpful during the process in the past.
  

That should kick off the review process and hopefully we'll get the approvals at next Wednesday's meeting.  And, if we have any outstanding issues, then we can get them resolved before the final Sept meeting on the 20th.  And, we'll still be ready by JavaOne!

Thanks!
Kevin

[John D. Ament]

Kevin,

Its very hard to follow the CQ process I'm afraid.

- There are no new dependencies in MP Config 1.1.  So I'm assuming no dependency CQs required?

- I have created https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14049 for the IP Log

John

[sst...@redhat.com]

I went to the CQ form and created one for javax.json-api 1.0 which had an existing CQ I selected to piggpback on: (PB CQ13739)
This creates a new issue request, but I'm not seeing an outstanding set of CQs, so should I be adding the dependencies to the spreadsheet or keep creating CQs for MP-JWT?

[Kevin Sutter]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:50:24 PM UTC-5, John D. Ament wrote:

Its very hard to follow the CQ process I'm afraid.

Yes, I agree!  It's very difficult to understand the process, especially the first time through the process.  Thanks for your patience.  And, like you mentioned in the other thread on this topic, continuing to update our Wiki with helpful hints would be appreciated.  Thanks!
 

- There are no new dependencies in MP Config 1.1.  So I'm assuming no dependency CQs required?

- I have created https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14049 for the IP Log

Thanks, John.  Config 1.1 seems to be in good shape.

--  Kevin
 

[Kevin Sutter]

Scott,
We already had approval for javax.json-api 1.0 (line 25 in the SS) -- if we didn't have this, then neither MP 1.0 nor 1.1 would have worked.  :-)  I see that you piggybacked on top of the CQ that I had gotten approval for.  There is no need to submit CQs for existing usage by the wider MP community.  So, even though another component of MP used javax-json-api previously and now JWT wants to use it, we don't need another CQ.  One CQ per dependency for the whole MP usage is sufficient.

One thing to point out is that the dependencies we use and ship with our API (runtime) require individual CQs.  The dependencies that we use for testing (ie. arguillian, junit, etc) can be bundled.  This differentiation was doc'd in column G (Usage) of the SS.

Like I mentioned, I plan to start comparing and scanning our dependencies today.  If you have input for your respective components, just feed them my way.  Or, you can open your own CQs.

BTW, here's a query that will show all of the CQs active for the MicroProfile project.  Currently, we have your json-api CQ and Config 1.1 CQ.

Thanks, Kevin

[sst...@redhat.com]

Ok, then the runtime dependencies of the API are satisfied as they are only JSON-P and CDI. Everything else is a dependency of the testing, which includes the TCK.

We do make the TCK available as a release artifact, the same as Config, so I assume it's dependencies also needs to be IPd?

[sst...@redhat.com]

I was starting a CQ for thecom.nimbusds:nimbus-jose-jwt:4.23 library we use in the TCK, and when I get to step 1 of the questionnaire, it is asking about how it is distributed. We don't actually since it is a uses binary dependency. Do I just select binary or what?

[Kevin Sutter]

Scott,

Are you indicating that this nimbus library is used and required by the TCK?  Or, is it a utility for executing the TCK?  If it's used by the TCK, then it should be a separate CQ.  If it's for build and testing of the TCK, then it should be part of our Build Dependency CQ.

In either case, all of our dependencies are binary.

Thanks, Kevin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/bNjiizJONBM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/faccd938-a551-4d24-b1f5-b77e40f4b2ca%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sst...@redhat.com]

It is it used by the TCK to generate test tokens. I have created the following CQ for it:

https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14058

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:53:30 AM UTC-7, Kevin Sutter wrote:

Scott,

Are you indicating that this nimbus library is used and required by the TCK?  Or, is it a utility for executing the TCK?  If it's used by the TCK, then it should be a separate CQ.  If it's for build and testing of the TCK, then it should be part of our Build Dependency CQ.

In either case, all of our dependencies are binary.

Thanks, Kevin

[Heiko Braun]

Is it advised to hold back the final release tag until the eclipse IP review and such has happened? I mean in case, this leads to further changes?

[Kevin Sutter]

Yes, please.

[Emily Jiang]

Thanks Kevin for driving this! I have created IP log for FT 1.0.

Emily

[Kevin Sutter]

I think we have our set of CQs created.  Thanks, Scott, for your help with driving some the JWT requirements.  I also created another catch-all for the build/test dependencies for the jwt-auth repo.  The complete set of active CQs for the MicroProfile 1.2 release can be found via this query.

Thanks, Kevin

[Kevin Sutter]

One of the things I forgot about in my original list of TODOs is that we need to get a review and approval from the Technology PMC (since MicroProfile is a sub-project of Technology).

I have sent off the required review requests and copied the owner of each of the respective components in MP 1.2.

Thanks, Kevin

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/bNjiizJONBM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/8d0e143a-51de-4d69-9dbe-4109fdd5f49c%40googlegroups.com.