Hmm, before that the question is "are the TCK spec compliant", a lot have a reference in the spec we maybe missed, do you have some pointers on them? If we were wrong let's fix it, if the TCK are wrong then maybe ignore the TCK?
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 12:33, Zowalla, Richard < richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit : > There is a TCK test regarding normalizeMimeTypeParameter which broke with > the current impl of normalizeMimeTypeParameter > > Therefore, I adjusted it but agree that it is mit really specified. > Question would be, if it is "ok" to fail specific tests of the TCK. > > Gruß > Richard > ------------------------------ > *Von:* Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. Mai 2022 11:53:37 > *An:* dev@geronimo.apache.org > *Betreff:* Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0 > > Not voting negatively but seems we broke normalizeMimeTypeParameter (I > guess copying the RI?) and I'm not sure it should be done. > From my understanding this part is not well specified and highly depends > on the impl but I don't see a reson to break existing consumers which I > always favor in regards of being aligned on the RI. > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> > > > Le mar. 24 mai 2022 à 11:45, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> > a écrit : > >> Here we go >> >> We now pass all TCK and signature tests. Thanks Richard. >> >> This is essentially the same as the M1 David did last week but with the >> fixes for compliance (See GERONIMO-6832) >> >> Here is the link for sources >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/activation_2.0_spec/ >> >> Here is the svn tag >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_2.0_spec-1.0.0/ >> >> Here is the staging repo >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1155 >> >> Please vote to approve this release: >> [ ] +1 Approve the release >> [ ] 0 Abstain (please provide specific comments) >> [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments) >> >> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> -- >> Jean-Louis Monteiro >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> >
