On Aug 8, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 8/8/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Inline...
On Aug 8, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Here are the issues that bother me most in 1.1.1. I believe
they are
> all also issues in 1.1.
>
> DEPLOYMENT
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2270
> - Redeploy broken when module ID does not include a type (patch
> available)
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2269
> - Redeploy broken when module ID does not include a version and app
> uses JNDI (patch available)
>
> I also just found a deploy problem with web apps with a plan
with no
> environment, but I haven't investigated much yet.
Why haven't the patches been committed? They need a Release Manager
go ahead? I certainly wouldn't classify either problem as a BLOCKER.
They could be fixed in 1.1.x.
They haven't been committed to 1.1.1 because the release manager nixed
it. They'll be in 1.1.2 no matter what.
In any case, we clearly need to standardize our definition of blocker.
I think that quality issues can be blockers, and it sounds like you
don't. Which is OK, I guess we just need some way to decide what
we're willing to ship with, whether that's a vote or the decision of
the release manager or whatever. Probably more responses to this
thread would help.
Yes, I've noted a difference in our definitions for some time. Here
are some definitions from the Jira system --
http://issues.apache.org/jira/ShowConstantsHelp.jspa?
decorator=popup#PriorityLevels
I find the Priority Level definitions to be reasonably close to my own.
Quality issues can be blockers, but your redeploy problems are not.
I'd put them as Major or Minor. By the Jira definitions, they are
Minor. Users have a pretty reasonable work-around (Redeploy fails,
Users can easily undeploy, then deploy).
I put some SECURITY issues in the BLOCKER category. If a user has
followed the rules and believes that he/she has properly secured some
resource and Geronimo permits unauthorized/unauthenticated access to
that resource, then that's a BLOCKER...
--kevan
> SECURITY
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2294
> - For a security realm with multiple login modules, we do not
handle
> the JAAS Control Flags correctly (e.g. we do not call the login
> modules using the correct logic). Code to reproduce available.
Alan
> had claimed a predecessor to this issue; I'm not sure if he's
planning
> on working on this one.
Does this problem allow unauthorized/unauthenticated access to
secured resources? If not, then I wouldn't categorize it as a
BLOCKER.
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2295
> - For a web app, if the security url-patterns don't exactly
match the
> servlet-mapping url-patterns, we apply no security at all. Code to
> reproduce available. Alan has claimed this issue.
That certainly seems like a must-fix BLOCKER to me...
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1053
> - Likely not still a problem (reported against M5), but if it
is, it
> sounds serious.
Even if it does still exist, doesn't seem like a BLOCKER.
>
> There are a large number of other issues out there in the
"security"
> category, but I don't think they're all as urgent (e.g.
GEORNIMO-1747,
> GERONIMO-2274, GERONIMO-2275, and GERONIMO-2279 probably ought
to be
> addressed in 1.1.2 but I don't think need to hold up 1.1.1).
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 8/8/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1.1.1 is in a form that we can get ready to release it. I was
>> talking with Aaron and he mentioned
>> that there were some security issues he was concerned about. I
>> would like to use this thread to
>> identify any issues that should be considered show stoppers and
>> make the decision on how to move
>> forward.
>>
>> Please use this thread to provide that information. What I think
>> we'll need to make an appropriate
>> assessement is:
>>
>> Issue Description
>> How long have we had it? (has it existed in earlier releases and
>> we knew it)
>> Exposure
>> JIRA issue number tracking the issue.
>>
>> Please provide your input as quickly as possible so we can assess
>> how to proceed with 1.1.1.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
