[VOTE] MicroProfile 1.1 Release

[Kevin Sutter]

Now that the Initial IP Reviews (Contribution Questionnaires) are complete (Yes!), we have clearance to complete the process for a MicroProfile 1.1 release!

The general MP 1.1 proposal was already accepted:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/microprofile/AFobwjU7z6E

More specifically, I am proposing the MicroProfile 1.1 release to contain MicroProfile 1.0 plus Config 1.0. 

Note:  Config 1.0 is going through the formal review process as we speak, so I am dependent on us finalizing that milestone.  And, part of the Config 1.0 review process is dependent on the Initial CQs I referenced earlier.  So, we'll both (Config 1.0 and MicroProfile 1.1) be going through the process at the same time.

I created a spec for MicroProfile 1.1.  This spec can be updated for each release of MicroProifle.  I don't see a reason to have separate api's or tck's since these MicroProfile releases are really just "convenience" features for pulling together the individual components that make up MicroProfile.  Each of these individual components have their respective api's and tck's.  The README and spec for MicroProfile can be found here:
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-bom

The MP 1.1 release was originally targeted for 2Q2017.  We're not going to quite make that due to these IP reviews, but we should easily make early 3Q2017 (July).

I know many of your voted on the original [DISCUSS] thread, but let's have a formal [VOTE] to complete the process.

Thanks!
Kevin

[Emily Jiang]

+1. Thank you Kevin for getting the CQs approved!
Emily

[Mike Croft]

+1

[Mark Little]

+1

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@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/5f0d24ab-8f3d-4378-9dde-385ec5e34114%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Martijn Verburg]

+1

Cheers,
Martijn

On 30 June 2017 at 14:22, Mark Little <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:

+1

On 30 Jun 2017, at 14:18, 'Emily Jiang' via MicroProfile <microp...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

+1. Thank you Kevin for getting the CQs approved!
Emily

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 1:56:54 PM UTC+1, Kevin Sutter wrote:

Now that the Initial IP Reviews (Contribution Questionnaires) are complete (Yes!), we have clearance to complete the process for a MicroProfile 1.1 release!

The general MP 1.1 proposal was already accepted:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/microprofile/AFobwjU7z6E

More specifically, I am proposing the MicroProfile 1.1 release to contain MicroProfile 1.0 plus Config 1.0. 

Note:  Config 1.0 is going through the formal review process as we speak, so I am dependent on us finalizing that milestone.  And, part of the Config 1.0 review process is dependent on the Initial CQs I referenced earlier.  So, we'll both (Config 1.0 and MicroProfile 1.1) be going through the process at the same time.

I created a spec for MicroProfile 1.1.  This spec can be updated for each release of MicroProifle.  I don't see a reason to have separate api's or tck's since these MicroProfile releases are really just "convenience" features for pulling together the individual components that make up MicroProfile.  Each of these individual components have their respective api's and tck's.  The README and spec for MicroProfile can be found here:
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-bom

The MP 1.1 release was originally targeted for 2Q2017.  We're not going to quite make that due to these IP reviews, but we should easily make early 3Q2017 (July).

I know many of your voted on the original [DISCUSS] thread, but let's have a formal [VOTE] to complete the process.

Thanks!
Kevin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 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/5f0d24ab-8f3d-4378-9dde-385ec5e34114%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 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/D388A741-5890-4392-85AA-6CBCAED4C8CC%40gmail.com.

[Heiko Rupp]

Not sure if I am allowed to vote, but if so: +1

[John D. Ament]

Until the issues with the signed JAR are resolved, i have to vote -1 as it's not clear that the JARs generated in the release will be usable across environments.

There's also a number of open tickets in the config spec that I think should be addressed, mostly typos where I'm not sure what the proper content is supposed to be.

John

[Emily Jiang]

John, please be specific on what you meant. Which issues need to be solved? We are releasing config 1.0, which is not to solve all issues. Please spin off a different thread for discussion with detailed issues.

Emily

[John D. Ament]

Hi Emily,

Just to be clear.  I am voting -1 due to the fact that the JARs are potentially not usable, the technical structure of the release.

The unresolved issues is an ancillary comment related to the contents of the release, not the technical structure.  If I look at the github issues https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-config/issues there are two categories of what I see as a problem:

- Issues marked as 1.0 that aren't fixed for 1.0

- Issues that have no fix version.

Among the specific content related concerns I have:

- Apparently there's still Copyright IBM mentioned in the code

- Inability to register converters that are lambdas

- No TCK tests for Date (related: I've noted that it's not clear what the supported date formats are)

- We don't know what the usage of discovered resources (converts, config sources) are

- The config spec is designed for use within IoT applications only

John

[Emily Jiang]

As I said earlier, please raise issues to the config repo and these issues will be accessed on whether they are blockers or not. We are not defining a perfect Config but just the first version of Config. We want to get it out for feedback and reiterate. By the way, we target some features for the next version of Config. We want to time box the spec and focus on the most important features, not creating a perfect one without any issues. Please do report issues when you see it. Not just flush it out towards the end.

Which file do you see IBM copyright? Can you please directly raise issues? Anyone is welcome to fix the issues when you spot them.

Emily

[Werner Keil]

Did you check against https://wiki.eclipse.org/JAR_Signing on JAR signing?

Except for P2 or Tycho specific aspects everything else should apply to any project.

Werner

[John Clingan]

I know that not everyone could make the last Live Hangout, but one topic that came up was to not use the [VOTE] thread to have a discussion of why a vote was given. Can we please vote with a +1 or -1, and refer to a [DISCUSSION] thread so it is easier to tally votes?

Example: -1 [link to reasoning]

Thanks all.

On Jul 4, 2017 8:56 AM, 'Emily Jiang' via MicroProfile <microp...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

As I said earlier, please raise issues to the config repo and these issues will be accessed on whether they are blockers or not. We are not defining a perfect Config but just the first version of Config. We want to get it out for feedback and reiterate. By the way, we target some features for the next version of Config. We want to time box the spec and focus on the most important features, not creating a perfect one without any issues. Please do report issues when you see it. Not just flush it out towards the end.

Which file do you see IBM copyright? Can you please directly raise issues? Anyone is welcome to fix the issues when you spot them.

Emily



On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 12:44:33 PM UTC+1, John D. Ament wrote:

Hi Emily,

Just to be clear.  I am voting -1 due to the fact that the JARs are potentially not usable, the technical structure of the release.

The unresolved issues is an ancillary comment related to the contents of the release, not the technical structure.  If I look at the github issues https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-config/issues there are two categories of what I see as a problem:

- Issues marked as 1.0 that aren't fixed for 1.0

- Issues that have no fix version.

Among the specific content related concerns I have:

- Apparently there's still Copyright IBM mentioned in the code

- Inability to register converters that are lambdas

- No TCK tests for Date (related: I've noted that it's not clear what the supported date formats are)

- We don't know what the usage of discovered resources (converts, config sources) are

- The config spec is designed for use within IoT applications only

John

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 4:53:04 AM UTC-4, Emily Jiang wrote:

John, please be specific on what you meant. Which issues need to be solved? We are releasing config 1.0, which is not to solve all issues. Please spin off a different thread for discussion with detailed issues.

Emily

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:14:27 AM UTC+1, John D. Ament wrote:

Until the issues with the signed JAR are resolved, i have to vote -1 as it's not clear that the JARs generated in the release will be usable across environments.

There's also a number of open tickets in the config spec that I think should be addressed, mostly typos where I'm not sure what the proper content is supposed to be.

John

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 8:56:54 AM UTC-4, Kevin Sutter wrote:

Now that the Initial IP Reviews (Contribution Questionnaires) are complete (Yes!), we have clearance to complete the process for a MicroProfile 1.1 release!

The general MP 1.1 proposal was already accepted:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/microprofile/AFobwjU7z6E

More specifically, I am proposing the MicroProfile 1.1 release to contain MicroProfile 1.0 plus Config 1.0. 

Note:  Config 1.0 is going through the formal review process as we speak, so I am dependent on us finalizing that milestone.  And, part of the Config 1.0 review process is dependent on the Initial CQs I referenced earlier.  So, we'll both (Config 1.0 and MicroProfile 1.1) be going through the process at the same time.

I created a spec for MicroProfile 1.1.  This spec can be updated for each release of MicroProifle.  I don't see a reason to have separate api's or tck's since these MicroProfile releases are really just "convenience" features for pulling together the individual components that make up MicroProfile.  Each of these individual components have their respective api's and tck's.  The README and spec for MicroProfile can be found here:
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-bom

The MP 1.1 release was originally targeted for 2Q2017.  We're not going to quite make that due to these IP reviews, but we should easily make early 3Q2017 (July).

I know many of your voted on the original [DISCUSS] thread, but let's have a formal [VOTE] to complete the process.

Thanks!
Kevin

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@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/03c6308e-06fd-48d0-831a-f54fc8fbb94f%40googlegroups.com.

[Kevin Sutter]

@JohnAment, It sounds like your issue with the jar signing is with the Config 1.0 artifacts.  Although Config 1.0 is targetted to be included in MicroProfile 1.1, issues with that component should (and has been) raised with the Config component.  We will not be able to release MP 1.1 until Config 1.0 is ready and approved.  So, from my perspective, your -1 vote is really against Config 1.0 and not against the proposed content for MP 1.1.  Any chance you could modify your vote for MP 1.1 to +1 (or 0) since we will need to resolve the Config issues before we can release either component or project?  Thanks.

Kevin

BTW, I am out on vacation this week, so my replies might be very slow in coming...  Thanks for everyone's patience.