I've added comments as described below to the issues linked to https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-15679. Your help with this is much appreciated. If it's going to take a long time to bring a spec to completion but most of that is waiting for one tiny piece, like a .Final version instead of an RC, it will help a *lot* if we can track that the bulk of the work is done.

Note that I changed the proposed wording to request that JIRA "Subtask" issues not be used. Please use top level issues (Component Upgrade, Task, etc) as Subtasks don't show up in JIRA Rapid Boards.

I also discovered that top level JIRAs can be linked with an 'is subtask of' relationship, which is nice. The main benefit of a Subtask issue is it establishes that kind of relationship.

Note that I pasted the comment into 27 different issues so I didn't much try to tailor it to what I know about particular issues. So don't be confused thinking "Why is Brian saying this when we chatted last week about...".

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 2:45 PM Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry@redhat.com> wrote:
I want to get things started re getting more fine-grained issues created for the various EE 10 spec migration issues linked to https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-15679. In many cases the issues directly linked to WFLY-15679 are too coarse-grained, because there are a number of distinct tasks that can be done separately for each, and to have a realistic sense of where we stand we need to have visibility into how things stand with those finer-grained pieces

A good recommendation I got from Tom Jenkinson is to add a comment on the various per-spec issues outlining the various types of detailed issues the assignee should consider filing, along with instructions as to how to do so.  The following is what I propose adding:

"Please consider creating subtasks of this issue for any of the following or other similar activities that can be accomplished as discrete pieces of work toward this JIRA's overall goal. Please add the 'EE10' label to any such issue.

* Ensuring that the standalone TCK for this spec can be run against a current build of WildFly Preview, and if possible reporting any issues to spec's working group before it is finalized.[1]
* Creating a branch for the EE 10 variant in the github repo for the JBoss fork of the spec, based on the appropriate code at Jakarta.[2]
* Integrating a milestone release of the spec API into WildFly's main branch.
* Integrating a milestone release of the implementation artifacts into WildFly's main branch.
* Integrating the final release of the spec API into WildFly's main branch.
* Integrating final releases of the implementation artifacts

Reminder: WildFly 27 is feature-boxed, so integrating non-final dependencies into main is not just ok, it is encouraged. Doing so lets us identify issues early.

We'll be using these finer-grained issues to better track progress on https://issues.redhat.com/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=14333&view=planning.nodetail&issueLimit=100 and elsewhere."

Note that I don't include passing standalone or parts of the platform TCK here, because it's not clear to me that that kind of thing can be cleanly decomposed into discrete pieces of work. We know we need to pass the TCKs.

Note also that this message and the related issues are focused on WildFly Preview. Our ultimate goal is to convert the standard WildFly code to EE 10, ideally as soon as possible. But to do that we'll need to complete the work of getting native jakarta.* namespace variants of all our components. That work can proceed in parallel with our work on EE 10 if we continue to do it in WFP for now.


[1] I'd only add this to issues where a standalone TCK exists.
[2] I'd only add this to issues where we are using a fork of the EE 9.1 spec API code in WildFly Preview. 

Best regards,
Brian