harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Salikh Zakirov <sal...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] M3 milestone discussion
Date Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:00:01 GMT
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.

>> (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).

 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.

>> (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.

> 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.

View raw message