MicroProfile Health 4.0 Specification Review

[xstefank]

• Specification name and version
• Add the label Release Review
• [ x Naming conventions for artifacts:
  • Specification PDF in the form of microprofile-project-spec-version.pdf
  • Specification HTML in the form of microprofile-project-spec-version.html
  • project is the microprofile specification short project name (config, health, ...)
  • version is the two digit x.y version of the specification

• The Nexus Staging links (orgeclipsemicroprofile-NNNN where NNNN is the staging repository id) (eg, https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/orgeclipsemicroprofile-NNNN/org/eclipse/microprofile/config/) which contain all the binaries and relevant documentation:
  • Staging Repo
  • Spec PDF
  • Spec HTML
  • Javadoc
  • API Jar
  • TCK Jar

• A link in the Eclipse downloads sections is still available for specs and apidocs:
  • https://download.eclipse.org/microprofile/staging/microprofile-health-4.0/
  • An apidocs directory containing the javadoc associated with the API jar.

• Summary that a Compatible Implementation is complete, passes the TCK, and that the TCK includes sufficient coverage of the specification.
  • Compatible Certification Request

• Release Review
  • Follow governance process and create/update release record
    • Component Release Record
  • Email to PMC (more info here)
  • Start release review by emailing EMO (more info here)(Track the bug issue created by EMO after the email)
  • A member of Steering Committee initiates the ballot by sending an email to [microprofile-wg] (mailto:microprofile-wg@eclipse.org) (more info here
  • After the voting has ended, email [microprofile-wg] (mailto:microprofile-wg@eclipse.org) with the ballot result (more info here

[kwsutter]

Similar comment as #101 (comment)

The javadoc jar file contains the Apache license and the EFSL license, which are okay. But, it also contains the EF TCK license? That should not be part of the javadoc jar file. I don't think this update is a requirement for a respin, but the TCK license should be removed. Open an issue/pr to clean this up after the release.

On a similar vein, the TCK Javadoc jar file contains the EFSL, which doesn't seem right. I think this EFSL should be removed from the TCK Javadoc jar file. Just include this with the issue/pr you create for the previous comment.

Otherwise, looks good! Thanks!