Wording in the JESP for migrating projects from anywhere other than the JCP
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 4
- Forks
- 5
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
This is vagely related to #5 but a slightly different case.
If a specification was get contributions from an "external specification" using a different namespace, e.g. "org.eclipse.microprofile", "org.springframework", "io.cncf", "io.opentracing", etc. (just few examples) for improved "Cloud Nativity" or another need, would that be legitimate, or not?
As the namespace is currently specified to be "jakarta" and other possible conflicts like different IP regimes, etc. may also arise from this.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading this issue alongside related issue #5 and the existing JESP wording referenced by the discussion. No files or tests are named in the payload. Done would require an agreed policy for migrations from external namespaces and corresponding wording changes in the JESP.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100