JSR Implementations (1.4): Maintenance Leads must provide a complete list of all implementations of the specification which have been

compatible and have been publicly or commercially released. This list

be provided at least quarterly, to be published publicly on jcp.org.

+1 for being as open as we can! regards, gerhard 2012/11/22 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; > I was pretty sure I sent such an email a while back but I can't find it. > > I would like to move our spec to the latest and more opened JCP rules aka > 2.9. I am almost certain that we do comply with it and that we even go > further than what is expected of us. For your info rules 2.8 force things > like publicly visible and archived communication. We currently are under > the JCP 2.7 rules. > > Here is a list of changes http://jcp.org/en/resources/2.8 > Here is how to migrate http://jcp.org/en/resources/change_jcp_version > > Please speak up if you don't want the spec to move to the new rules. > Otherwise I will proceed next week after turkeys have been thoroughly > digested by our USA reps :) > > Emmanuel > _______________________________________________ > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev > _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

We are waiting for your credit card number. Nobody on this list will abuse it ;o) On 22 nov. 2012, at 20:10, Gerhard Petracek wrote: +1 for being as open as we can! regards, gerhard 2012/11/22 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; > I was pretty sure I sent such an email a while back but I can't find it. > > I would like to move our spec to the latest and more opened JCP rules aka > 2.9. I am almost certain that we do comply with it and that we even go > further than what is expected of us. For your info rules 2.8 force things > like publicly visible and archived communication. We currently are under > the JCP 2.7 rules. > > Here is a list of changes http://jcp.org/en/resources/2.8 > Here is how to migrate http://jcp.org/en/resources/change_jcp_version > > Please speak up if you don't want the spec to move to the new rules. > Otherwise I will proceed next week after turkeys have been thoroughly > digested by our USA reps :) > > Emmanuel > _______________________________________________ > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev > _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

I was pretty sure I sent such an email a while back but I can't find it. I would like to move our spec to the latest and more opened JCP rules aka 2.9. I am almost certain that we do comply with it and that we even go further than what is expected of us. For your info rules 2.8 force things like publicly visible and archived communication. We currently are under the JCP 2.7 rules. Here is a list of changes http://jcp.org/en/resources/2.8 Here is how to migrate http://jcp.org/en/resources/change_jcp_version Please speak up if you don't want the spec to move to the new rules. Otherwise I will proceed next week after turkeys have been thoroughly digested by our USA reps :) Emmanuel _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev