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 12:08:52 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
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.

IMHO, 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