Hi Lukas On Oct 26, 2011, at 4:15 AM, Łukasz Moreń wrote:
> Hi, > > comments inline: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Antonio Sanso <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Lukasz, >> >> just my 2 cents here. >> >> On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:42 AM, Łukasz Moreń wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> We are still waiting for the IP grant from the university, although I am >>> sure it will be sorted out. >>> I know it may be annoying, but we can just keep waiting. >>> >>> There is growing interest in Amber development so to not block that, >> maybe >>> we could: >>> >>> 1. make a new branch from the current trunk (we would have to do that >>> anyway) - stable draft-10 implementation. >> >> Wouldn't be enough doing a tag for it (rather than a branch)? I mean do you >> expect that anybody would use version 10 of oauth2.0? >> If not, I do not personally see any real benefit from the branch. >> > > We could do tag as well, however IMHO creating branch is not big harm and we > have opportunity to commit possible bug fixes for draft-10. > Many big OAuth 2.0 providers, like Facebook or Google, implements this draft > and probably it will not change quickly, > so would be good to keep Amber draft-10 implementation reliable. thanks for clarify. My "concern" was that as you know maintain another branch sometimes means double work in order to keep all the streaming up to date. But due the circumstances +1 also from me (not binding). Regards Antonio > > >> >>> 2. continue adding new features to the trunk - there is already few >> patches >>> waiting for commit on jira. >>> >>> Please let me know what do you think? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Lukasz Moren >> >> Regards >> >> Antonio >> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Pid <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 19/07/2011 07:51, Stefan Seelmann wrote: >>>>> It would be nice if we could solve the IP clearance of the Leelo code >>>>> as soon as possible [1]. We need a signed software grant [2] from >>>>> Newcastle University. Then we need to update the license headers in >>>>> all source files according to [3], that means the copyright notice >>>>> should be moved to the NOTICE file. >>>> >>>> Lukasz, Maciej this is in your hands I think. Can you keep us posted? >>>> >>>> I'm happy to do the tidy up & some of the dull stuff thereafter. >>>> >>>> >>>> p >>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Stefan >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/amber-leeloo.html >>>>> [2] http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt >>>>> [3] http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Łukasz Moreń <[email protected] >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think there are some things that need to be improved before the >>>> release. >>>>>> Could you please suggest what Amber is currently missing what is >>>> required >>>>>> for the release or ideally try to fix it :)?. >>>>>> With Maciej we will work on OAuth 2.0 module. From what I see should >> be >>>>>> done: >>>>>> >>>>>> - unify maven dependencies in oauth 2.0 module by specifying versions >> in >>>>>> <dependencyManagement> in the main pom >>>>>> - change oauth 2.0 module version form 0.2-SNAPSHOT to 1.0-SNAPSHOT >>>> (used by >>>>>> the core pom) - is this change safe? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Lukasz Moren >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
