Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> a écrit :
> I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes. > Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff > before. > Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker. > > It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it. > But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same. > > > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> >> >> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >>> Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as >>> well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the >>> signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd >>> also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API. >>> >> >> We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some >> project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if >> nobody beats me at it. >> >> >>> Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's >>> hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the >>> api locally. >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> > Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [email protected]>: >>> > >>> > The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum >>> (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API >>> rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the >>> javadoc is 100% from scratch. >>> > >>> > Romain Manni-Bucau >>> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >>> > >>> > >>> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[email protected]> a >>> écrit : >>> > It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers >>> to indicate it's licensed to the ASF. >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > @John: what's the questionably part? >>> > >>> > >>> > Romain Manni-Bucau >>> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >>> > >>> > >>> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[email protected]> a >>> écrit : >>> > -1 since there's questionably licensed files in >>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile >>> >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to >>> change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :) >>> > >>> > >>> > Romain Manni-Bucau >>> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >>> > >>> > >>> > Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >>> a écrit : >>> > Up? >>> > >>> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >>> a écrit : >>> > Hi guys, >>> > >>> > I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another >>> mail >>> > >>> > The dist (dev) area is available at >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951) >>> > The staging repo is: >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/ >>> > For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork: >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 >>> (will push it on asf once done) >>> > My keys is the same as last time (available in >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS) >>> > >>> > This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding >>> +1s. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Romain Manni-Bucau >>> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >>> >>>
