Transcript for yesterday's IRC meeting

[Brian Pontarelli]

Sorry for the delay. I've been out of town.

I don't think it the group would be informal. I would like to formalize a lot of things and create some solid standards. 

With respect to Jigsaw, I agree with all of your points though. I think it makes a lot of sense to get people involved in the JSR/EG now and start discussions.

My goal with the IRC meetings and a Google group is to get more participation from the community outside of the people that work on and follow Jigsaw. As I've mentioned, there is a lot of discussion going on out there that doesn't really concern itself with Jigsaw and vice versa. It would be nice to get everyone together at some point.

-bp


On Oct 22, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Neil Bartlett wrote:

> I don't know… doesn't it seem like you're just working around the continued non-existence of a JSR or an EG for Java 8 modularity?
> 
> You're right that the jigsaw-dev mailing list appears to be for discussion of the internal Jigsaw project. Any questions about the the Java 8 module system or the requirements document are dismissed by MR with "that's up to the EG". I don't believe that an informal group on Google Groups is going to help this situation.
> 
> There is an urgent need for the following points to be clarified:
> 
> 1) When will the JSR and EG for Java 8 modularity be created?
> 2) What is the relationship between the ongoing Jigsaw project, the requirements document and the ultimate JSR?
> 3) Why is so much work still being done on an implementation project when the requirements haven't even been discussed and agreed yet, let alone any technical solution? Is this really just a throwaway prototype, or are the requirements going to be manipulated to fit the existing implementation?
> 
> Regards,
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, 22 October 2011 at 22:20, Brian Pontarelli wrote:
> 
>> We could try. I know there are developers that aren't on the jigsaw-dev list but are involved in discussions in other places. Plus, the Jigsaw list seems directly related to internal development of Jigsaw. Using a separate list would allow discuss of concepts outside of Jigsaw and promote a wider community involvement.
>> 
>> -bp
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Kevin Krouse wrote:
>> 
>>> Why not just use the jigsaw mailing list?
>>> 
>>> Kevin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Brian Pontarelli <brian at pontarelli.com (mailto:brian at pontarelli.com)> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Oct 22, 2011, at 7:54 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 10/22/2011 04:11 AM, Neil Bartlett wrote:
>>>>> Hello jigsaw-dev,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is a transcript available from the IRC meeting on ##java-modularity/freenode yesterday (21 Oct)?
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah I was going to post a follow-up in my blog and here but I haven't had a chance. The transcript URL is http://is.gd/XaTjFN (for the time being anyway). I have kept the channel /topic updated so you can always drop in and get the latest URLs and information.
>>>> 
>>>> Looks like it's going to be a weekly thing.
>>> 
>>> There is also a discussion going on about the meeting on the Maven list and there is some potential for discussions on other lists as well. To help reduce the amount of noise and duplication, I create a Google Group that we should try to get everyone that is interested to use.
>>> 
>>> I'm also planning on using this list for additional discussions that might fall outside the scope of Jigsaw. Specifically, I want to discuss dependency management tools and standardization of dependency meta-data. This will apply for Java 1.7 and below.
>>> 
>>> Here is the info:
>>> 
>>> web: http://groups.google.com/group/java-modularity
>>> email: java-modularity at googlegroups.com (mailto:java-modularity at googlegroups.com)
>>> 
>>> -bp
>