MicroProfile 2.0.1-RC1 ready to review

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Kevin Sutter

unread,
Jul 10, 2018, 5:27:11 PM7/10/18
to Eclipse MicroProfile
Hi,
Due to the hiccup with the pom.xml for MP 2.0 not referencing the json-b artifact correctly, we have to respin MicroProfile 2.0 [1].

The RC1 for MicroProfile 2.0.1 is located here:  https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile/releases/tag/2.0.1-RC1

Please review and give me comments for improvements.  We want to turn this around quickly since the current 2.0 pom is not usable in it's current state.

Thanks,
Kevin

[1]  Reference the background for this change on the original 2.0 announce thread:  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/microprofile/W9XH_ciPs-k

Emily Jiang

unread,
Jul 10, 2018, 5:48:45 PM7/10/18
to Eclipse MicroProfile
Thank you Kevin! There are a couple of typos on the 2.0.1-RC1 release note:

To get started with MicroProfile 2.0.1, add the following dependency to your pom.xml:

<dependency>
      <groupId>org.eclipse.microprofile</groupId>
      <artifactId>microprofile</artifactId>
      <version>2.0.1</version>
      <type>pom</type>
</dependency>

=>

To get started with MicroProfile 2.0.1-RC1, add the following dependency to your pom.xml:

<dependency>
      <groupId>org.eclipse.microprofile</groupId>
      <artifactId>microprofile</artifactId>
      <version>2.0.1-RC1</version>
      <type>pom</type>
</dependency>

By the way, I also have a few minor comments on the PR . My apologies for not being able to review earlier! Please take a look.

Thanks
Emily

Kevin Sutter

unread,
Jul 11, 2018, 10:43:20 AM7/11/18
to Eclipse MicroProfile
Thanks, Emily.  Since these are RC builds, the updates are appropriate for the final release of 2.0.1 -- even though we're working through the RC process.  All of the docs I have updated are specific to the 2.0.1 release.  In the past, I have also written the release notes as if we're developing the final 2.0.1 release as well.  And, until we decide to make these RC drivers available via maven, it really doesn't make sense to indicate that the dependency information specifies a version of 2.0.1-RC1...  I plan to leave this as-is for now...

But, thanks for the comments on the original PR, albeit they were a bit late...  That PR is already merged.  I'll create a new PR and will ask for your review of the material before creating an RC2... 

Thanks, Kevin
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages