harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] M3 milestone discussion
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:43:53 GMT
Salikh Zakirov wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> The 'official' goal of the project is to create Java SE, and the only
>> way to do that is to pass the corresponding JCK.
>> ...
> Tim, thanks a lot for a detailed response.
> I see that generally our views are not that different,
> the difference being mostly in definition of what release
> must constitute to warrant an "official" status.
> Seeing that inagreement is small and (hopefully) not that significant,
> I will try to refrain from further flaming after giving answers
> and reconciling the discussion.

I think we are a long way from flaming <g>

>>> (2) decide if the current status is alpha or beta
>> Alpha or beta towards what?  We call them development snapshots which is
>> what they are.
> Alpha/beta status is towards the stated project goal: be certified and
> compatible. We cannot assess certifiability, but we have some data on
> compatibility (application status and various test suites).

Agreed.  And I think it would serve us well to clearly demonstrate the
compatibility goals we have achieved.

> From my point of view, the current snapshots look more like an alpha
> releaseas, though labeled as development snapshots.
> In the end, the labeling difference may cause a fraction of potential
> beta testers, who would check out the official beta build, to be scared
> away by the inofficial snapshot status -- hopefully this fraction is
> small enough to be ignorable.

For now, we have to continue calling them unofficial Java SE and work in

>>> (5) and finally, encourage (rather than discourage) including these
>>> alpha releases
>>> >     to "unstable" areas of the popular Linux distributions
>> That's a proposal to bring into a wider forum (e.g. jcp-open@) since you
>> are suggesting that the ASF endorse a Java look-alike runtime.  The
>> ASF/Sun/JCP discussions are attempting to resolve whether we Sun will
>> honor their promise to provide a suitable license.
> I do not think it makes sense to bring this proposal into a wider forum
> unless there is significant support for it in Harmony PMC.
> Nevertheless, it captures my point of view pretty well.

The Harmony PMC views must not be out of alignment with the developer
views, so we make decisions in the open on this list.  There has been no
private PMC discussion on this.

>> As above,
>> I don't know how you would declare alpha or beta status against a set of
>> criteria we don't have access to at the moment.
> To the contrary, we _have_ the criteria: (1) Java specifications
> (2) compatibility on existing applications
> What we don't have is a means to estimate how far we are from being
> able to qualify for the Java-compatible logo.

No, the ability to use the logo is a different agreement yet again!  We
don't have a means of measuring how close we are to the official
definition of specification compliance (i.e. passing the JCK), and then
receiving the rights that come from being compliant.


View raw message