[RESULTS] Merge Pull Request 123 - MicroProfile JWT support

[David Blevins]

Officially closing the vote.  Thanks for the patience everyone.  This one 
needed some good discussion and a bit of extra time.

+1s
Andy Gumbrecht
Bruno Baptista
David Blevins
Gurkan Erdogdu
Ivan Junckes Filho
Jean-Louis Monteiro
Jonathan Gallimore
Otávio Gonçalves de Santana
Richard Monson-Haefel
Rudy De Busscher
Thiago Veronezi

0s
Matthew Broadhead

-1s
Romain Manni-Bucau

Vote passes with eleven +1s, one 0, and one -1.  Though this is a technical 
vote and a -1 would normally veto, after long discussion here and a short 
follow up with the board, all involved agree the -1 is not a true technical 
veto and not binding.  Guidance from the board was to use a -0 on technical 
votes if the intent is not to veto.  I think it would be good for us to be 
extra clear if a vote is a technical vote vs consensus.

Though it took a while to talk this one out and the vote is not unanimous, it 
is good to see the discussion and high turnout.  I think this reflects us using 
muscles we haven't used in a while and is an overall incredibly positive thing.

Thanks to everyone who voted and participated in the community discussion!


-David

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 5:02 PM, David Blevins  wrote:
> 
> Jean-Louis has put a PR up for discussion for JWT Support in TomEE.  
> 
> - https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123
> 
> There are 35 commits spanning 27 days of work.  It's been reviewed by Andy 
> and Rudy.  One a committer and one a contributor, which is great for us.
> 
> There's an open question as to where the code should live in its final state: 
> TomEE or Geronimo.  This conversation doesn't seem conclusive after 12 days.  
> It's ok for us not to agree, but we should have more votes so there is a 
> clear outcome and we are acting as a community to our best ability.
> 
> Vote: Merge Pull Request 123?
> 
> +1  Yes, let's do it
> +-0 Abstain
> -1  No, don't put this code in TomEE
> 
> 
> Out of respect for the conversation, this is not a vote of where the code 
> will live in its final state.  This is just a decision to merge or not.  It 
> would give the users something they can try, which can be updated by a future 
> PR if the code does eventually move.
> 
> 
> -David
> 

Re: [RESULT] Explore creating a reusable JWT Library

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Le 10 avr. 2018 05:23, "David Blevins"  a écrit :

Officially closing the vote.  Thanks for the patience everyone.  As
mentioned in the other vote, this one needed some good discussion and a bit
of extra time.

+1s
Andy Gumbrecht
David Blevins
Ivan Junckes Filho
Jean-Louis Monteiro
Jonathan Gallimore
Thiago Veronezi

+0
Rudy De Busscher

-1s
Mark Struberg
Romain Manni-Bucau

This was intended as a non-technical vote, so I've registered Mark's -1 as
he intended it.  Thanks, Mark, for the clarification.  Matthew, you didn't
vote, your participation was quite high -- thank you!  You're more then
welcome to vote, sir :)

This was a consensus vote to see if there was will keep working on the JWT
code here and see if it could be made reusable.  We didn't really need this
vote to accomplish anything other than to see where people's heads are at
and make sure we're communicating with each other clearly.

It does seem over all that the desire is to take a couple more steps.  This
vote did not address where the code should live in its final state.  We
don't really know how reusable anything will be.



...it has been mention 3 times the code IS reusable and should just be a
lib. It was codes this exact way so no ambiguity here.


I'd probably expect us to take a few more steps, see how things look and
come back to the "where" topic.


-David


> On Mar 18, 2018, at 5:02 PM, David Blevins 
wrote:
>
> The vote for merging PR 123 does not address community will on what to do
with the code beyond merging it.  One can realistically vote +1 to merge
the code, but then desire to see the code cleaned up and moved elsewhere.
One can realistically desire seeing an attempt to clean up the code to find
what is reusable and may wish to withhold a final decision until we see how
fruitful such a module would be.
>
> Out of respect for people who may not know exactly how they feel (TomEE
or Geronimo), this is a vote for the latter.
>
> Vote: Should we attempt to extract code from the JWT PR to see what is
reusable and how successful such a jar would be?
>
> +1 Let's give it a shot here
> +-0
> -1 Let's do this elsewhere
>
> If the vote is +1 to attempt an extraction of reusable code here, final
conclusion of if that extraction is worth it or where it should live is not
being voted on.  People are welcome to decide differently based on the
results of the exercise.
>
>
> -David
>

Re: [DISCUSS] switching TomEE8 to master

[Jonathan Gallimore]

Not yet. Doing what I can. Last week and this weekend was extremely busy.

Jon

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018, 23:05 Alex The Rocker,  wrote:

> Hello Jon,
>
> Do you have some news to share with us about your efforts to release
> Johnzon-1.0.1 / TomEE+ 7.0.5 ?
>
> Thanks,
> Alexandre
>
> 2018-04-04 16:33 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
> > I'm about half-way through - couple of modules still to do and there's a
> > handful of test failures.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Alex The Rocker 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Jon,
> >>
> >> Have you got some news about this update for Johnzon-1.0.1 / TomEE
> 7.0.5 ?
> >> Anytime you have something ready for test, I'll test !
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Alexandre
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-04-02 1:56 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >> > Made some progress with this - more tomorrow.
> >> >
> >> > Jon
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, 18:04 Jonathan Gallimore, <
> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Happy to try that. I'll give that a go this evening. I misunderstood
> >> your
> >> >> proposal, but it makes sense now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers
> >> >>
> >> >> Jo
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1 Apr 2018 17:41, "Romain Manni-Bucau" 
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> What about my proposal? Take johnzon master, copy it over 1.0.x and
> >> >> downgrade apis? It is probably the safest and shouldnt be long to
> make
> >> >> work. Can help next week if needed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Le 1 avr. 2018 17:06, "Jonathan Gallimore" <
> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>
> >> >> a
> >> >> écrit :
> >> >>
> >> >> > Agreed. I'll start working on the list of fixes tonight.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jon
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, 16:02 Mark Struberg,  >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Of course I also want to ship a 7.0.5 (or 7.1.0 if we opt to up
> to
> >> >> Java8
> >> >> > > as min version).
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > And I'd also happily volunteer to release Johnzon-1.0.1.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > BUT, first we need to check which Johnzon bugfixes are necessary
> to
> >> >> > > backport!
> >> >> > > Then let's create tickets for that version and solve them.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > LieGrue,
> >> >> > > strub
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Am 01.04.2018 um 16:50 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> >> >> > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I think getting TomEE 8 out is obviously is preferred option. I
> >> would
> >> >> > > still
> >> >> > > > like to maintain TomEE 7 for those that want it. I'd be happy
> to
> >> go
> >> >> > > through
> >> >> > > > JIRA, and backport fixes as necessary for Johnzon 1.0.x.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>