Do we want to reroll this one without the api? Since we are almost done i'd like to avoid another vote without any change impacting users but worse case i can do it next week.
Le mer. 6 juin 2018 13:50, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi John, > > Created https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/95, it is > not a PR but hope it covers the issue enough. > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> > > > Le mer. 6 juin 2018 à 13:34, John D. Ament <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> I'll go with a +1 if you're going to raise the PR upstream to fix the >> eclipse JAR >> >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 2:11 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I already voted +1 >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [email protected]>: >>> > >>> > @John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need? >>> > @Mark: any vote? ;) >>> > >>> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> a >>> écrit : >>> > ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so >>> we can yank the APIs from our repos >>> > >>> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >>> a écrit : >>> > 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 >>> > >>> >>>
