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: Ask for new JSF 2.2 TCK
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:33:37 GMT
On 22/08/2013 13:08, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The fact that the ASF has left the JCP and has no trust
> in the JCP and that TCK's are an instrument of the JCP.

While that certainly colours our view of any contract we might sign with
Oracle (we want to make very sure any TCK agreement is compatible with
releasing any tested software under the AL2) it by no means precludes
the ASF from signing a new TCK agreement.

The board minutes from 20 June 2012 state the contract renewal
discussions are ongoing under the purview of V.P. Legal.

The board minutes from 25 July 2012 state that the discussion is ongoing.

The board minutes from 12 Nov 2012 imply that the TCK renewal had
stalled and had been started up again.

The board minutes from 12 Dec 2012 state that work is continuing and the
Tomcat PMC made clear its preference for the agreement to be renewed.

The board minutes from 20 Feb 2013 state V.P. Legal's intention to spend
some time on the TCK renewal.

The board minutes from 20 March 2013 state that an updated agreement had
been received for review.

The board minutes from 14 April 2013 state that although the contract
has expired, neither side is interested in abandoning it.

The board minutes from 15 May 2013 state that a small number of issues
were identified with the proposed agreement and that Aaron Williamson of
the SFLC would be discussing these issues with Oracle on our behalf.

The board minutes from 19 June 2013 include a concern from the Tomcat
project that the Java EE 7 TCKs were not available.

All of the public information available indicates that both Oracle and
the ASF would like to see the agreement extended if mutually agreeable
terms can be found. Further, I haven't seen anything to suggest
otherwise on any private lists I am subscribed to and I would have
expected any private discussion of this topic to touch at least one of
those lists.

> On Aug 22, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 22/08/2013 12:59, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Nor will we ever.

When you make statements like the above, particularly when you use the
word "we", it can easily be interpreted as an official position of the
ASF rather than a personal view.

Which is it?

If it is the official position of the ASF that the TCK agreement will
never be renewed, when was the board planning on telling the affected PMCs?

If it isn't the official position of the ASF that the agreement will
never be renewed please can you be a little more careful when making
statements like the one above to avoid possible interpretation of your
personal view as the official ASF position?

Mark


>>
>> What are you basing that statement on?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 5:33 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/08/2013 04:10, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been working on running the JSF 2.2 TCK tests against MyFaces
>>>>> Core 2.2.x, and I have found the the copy of JSF 2.2 TCK in the svn repo
>>>>> (https://svn.apache.org/repos/tck/sun-tcks/jsf/2.2/) is very old. It
>>>>> looks like an snapshot (jsftck-2.2_26-Feb-2013.zip) before the official
>>>>> JSF 2.2 jars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could somebody help me here, downloading an updated copy of the TCK,
so
>>>>> I can run it against the current code in MyFaces?.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll appreciate any help you can give me.
>>>>
>>>> The ASF does not have access to anything more up to date than is already
>>>> in the TCK repo.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message