the api is already dropped in our repo, right? If so I'll can do a release re-roll.
LieGrue, strub > Am 10.06.2018 um 20:02 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > 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 | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > 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 > > >
