www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: TCK download access for Jeff....
Date Fri, 14 May 2010 15:38:39 GMT
On 14/05/2010 16:34, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On May 14, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 14/05/2010 16:00, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>> Geir,
>>> Can Jeff Genender be given access to the Java partner website as well? 
>>> He's the one that is submitting the challenges to Oracle, but one of the 
>>> things he cannot do right now is actually check to make sure a newer TCK is 
>>> already available prior to submitting the challenge.   I think it would 
>>> definitely be best if he could at least check for newer TCK's prior to 
>>> submitting a challenge just to reduce the embarrassment of submitting 
>>> challenges for tests that have already been fixed/changed.   I know we've hit

>>> this problem in the past and it's not something that really should be an 
>>> issue.
>>> The other two alternatives are:
>>> 1) Somehow get it so that Mark and I can also submit challenges.  I really 
>>> don't know anything about that though.
>> Anyone can issue a challenge. They just need to send an e-mail with the
>> required information to our POC at Sun. I'll stick their contact details
>> in the repo in a sec.
> I don't think we want that

Removed for now.

> - we've always asked that there be coordination points for this in the projects as to
not assail the spec leads w/ random questions from random people.

That's news to me. Where is this documented?

>>> 2) Change the "workflow" so that new challenges are first assigned to Mark or

>>> myself to verify the TCK level.  After that is done, we re-assign the issue to

>>> Jeff.
>> I believe we get e-mailed if updated packages are added to the
>> JavaPartner website. As long as we respond to those reasonably promptly
>> we should be OK.
> I think that we should be cc-ed on the challenges just to be sure that 
> a) things are decently organized and
> b) things remain visible and civil

Sounds like you have a process in mind for this. Is it documented anywhere?


View raw message