You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2018/06/03 07:43:46 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
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 <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 lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Up?
>
> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <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>
>>
>
Re: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Romain
Le mer. 13 juin 2018 à 20:13, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Will reroll without the api to avoid that discussion and to hang the
> release 1 month for no technical reason, be ready to vote ;)
>
>
> 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 dim. 10 juin 2018 à 23:18, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
>> Yep, all ready
>>
>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 20:35, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>>
>>> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> > 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>> > I already voted +1
>>> >
>>> > LieGrue,
>>> > strub
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>> > >
>>> > > @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 <je...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> > > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 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 <jo...@apache.org>
>>> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> > > > Up?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
[CANCEL] [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Will reroll without the api to avoid that discussion and to hang the
release 1 month for no technical reason, be ready to vote ;)
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 dim. 10 juin 2018 à 23:18, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Yep, all ready
>
> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 20:35, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>
>> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> > I already voted +1
>> >
>> > LieGrue,
>> > strub
>> >
>> >
>> > > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > @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 <je...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> > > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > > 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 <jo...@apache.org>
>> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> > > > Up?
>> > > >
>> > > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Yep, all ready
Le dim. 10 juin 2018 20:35, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> 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 <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > I already voted +1
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > @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 <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> > > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > 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 <jo...@apache.org>
> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > > > Up?
> > > >
> > > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> I already voted +1
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > @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 <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > > Up?
> > >
> > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> 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
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I already voted +1
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>> > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> > @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 <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>> > >
>>> > > 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 <jo...@apache.org>
>>> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> > > Up?
>>> > >
>>> > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>> >
>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> I already voted +1
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > @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 <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>> >
>> >
>> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> > > Up?
>> > >
>> > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
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 <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> I already voted +1
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > @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 <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> > > Up?
> > >
> > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
I already voted +1
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> @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 <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > Up?
> >
> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> 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
>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
@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 <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 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 <jo...@apache.org>
>>>>> 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 <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> 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 <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>> > Up?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>>> >
>>>> > 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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 <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>> > Up?
>>>> >
>>>> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> > 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>> > Up?
>>> >
>>> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>.
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.
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 <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>> > Up?
>> >
>> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> 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 <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> > Up?
> >
> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> 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
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
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.
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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Up?
>
> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> 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
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <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 dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> @John: what's the questionably part?
>>
>>
>> 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 dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <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 lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Up?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>>> 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 <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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> @John: what's the questionably part?
>
>
> 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 dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <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 lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Up?
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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 <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>
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
@John: what's the questionably part?
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 dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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 <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 lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> Up?
>>>
>>
>>> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <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>
>>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
-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 <rm...@gmail.com>
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 <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 lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Up?
>>
>
>> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <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>
>>>
>>