ee4j.cdi 5.0
<!-- This template is used to track the reviews that are done using GitHub. -->
This review was tracked here: [GitHub issue link](https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/917)
PMI record: [Jakarta Contexts and Dependency Injection CDI 5.0 Release Review](https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.cdi/reviews/jakarta-contexts-and-dependency-injection-cdi-5.0-release-review)
<!-- This is the template we're using for GitHub issues, please copy-paste this directly into the GitHub PR used to track the review:
Hello all,
the EMO is trying to avoid duplication of review records, so we will be providing our feedback and comments related to this review directly here.
## EMO REVIEW CHECKLIST
EDP Review status: ONGOING
### **EMO review checklist**
PMI record: URL
_**EF Specification Process**_
- [ ] Spec Committee Ballot completed
_**Intellectual Property Management**_
- [ ] All project code has [copyright and license headers](https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip-copyright-headers) correctly applied. ** EMO will scan the code at their discretion **
- [ ] All distributed third-party content has been vetted by the IP Due Diligence process (i.e., IP Log has been approved)
_**Open Source Rules of Engagement**_
- [ ] PMC approval [on the mailing list](https://github.com/eclipsefdn/emo-team/emo/-/blob/main/%7Blink%20to%20the%20message%7D)
General:
- [ ] Project is operating within the mission and scope defined in its top-level project’s charter
- [ ] Project is operating within the bounds of its own scope
- [ ] Project is operating in an open and transparent manner
- [ ] Overall the project is operating according to the Eclipse Development Process.
Things to check:
- Communication channels advertised
- Advertised communication channels used
- Committers are responding to questions
- Committers are responding to issues
- Committers are responding to pull/merge/review requests
_**Branding and Trademarks**_
The following applies when the project has a custom website.
To the best of our knowledge:
- [ ] Project content correctly uses Eclipse Foundation trademarks
- [ ] Project content (code and documentation) does not violate trademarks owned by other organizations
Things to check:
- [ ] Project website uses the [project's formal name](https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#trademarks-website-name) in first and all prominent references
- [ ] Project website includes a trademark attribution statement
- [ ] Project website footers contain all [necessary elements](https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#trademarks-website-footer)
_**Legal Documentation**_
Required files:
- [ ] License files in all repository roots
- [ ] README
- [ ] CONTRIBUTING (or equivalent)
Recommended files:
- [ ] NOTICES or equivalent (you can use the [Legal Documentation generator](https://www.eclipse.org/projects/tools/documentation.php) available under committer tools)
- [ ] CODE_OF_CONDUCT
- [ ] SECURITY
See examples for [Security file](https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/best-practices/-/blob/main/templates/SECURITY.md) and [Code of Conduct](https://github.com/eclipse/.github/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md).
Required elements:
- [ ] ECA is referenced/described
Recommended elements:
- [ ] Build instructions provided
- [ ] [Security policy](https://www.eclipse.org/security/policy.php) is described
_**Metadata (PMI)**_
- [ ] The formal name, e.g. "Eclipse Foo™", is used in the project title
- [ ] The formal name including appropriate marks (e.g, "™") is used in the first mention in the text of the project description, and scope
- [ ] The project description starts with a single paragraph that can serve as an executive summary
- [ ] Source code repository references are up-to-date
- [ ] Download links and information are up-to-date (see [EF handbook for more information on how-to do this](https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#resources-downloads))
- [ ] Communication channels listed in the PMI (i.e. public mailing list, forums, etc.)
-->
issue