You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shiro.apache.org by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com> on 2010/02/02 04:54:07 UTC
Re: Preparing for our first release
I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few
smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do
before a release, most of them nicely tracked at
http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing
that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much
but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the
hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here and
in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area and
publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you
would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them
now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues
currently scheduled for 1.0
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078)
to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule
them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise
ready for 1.0.0. Agree?
Kalle
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> Done.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue?
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received stipulations
>>>> on
>>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend created
>>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us in
>>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is
>>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work, the
>>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that we
>>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual property
>>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but I
>>>>> think we're ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Les
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the old
>>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also
>>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers in the
>>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear record of
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from JSecurity
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to
>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the
>>>>>>>>>> incubator,
>>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project
>>>>>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the
>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig helped
>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all previous
>>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring all
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else that
>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> done?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
It is unlikely this will make it in to 1.0 unless someone contributed
the code for it - we've been too busy finalizing core APIs for the 1.0
release.
At the moment that issue is a placeholder until someone can dedicate
some time to it. The sooner anyone (not just the dev team) can
contribute something, the sooner it will make it in. Hopefully
someone in the community can find some time for it!
Cheers,
Les
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Tauren Mills <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What kind of priority does OAuth support have? I see there is an issue for
> it: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-119. I'd like to see Shiro
> support it sooner than later, but then again, I wouldn't want to hold up the
> release for it. Is it just a wish for someday, or is it actually a planned
> feature?
>
> Tauren
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Ha! I knew that would get the ball rolling :) I'll take care of
>> SHIRO-59. Agree with everything Les said - API changes would be
>> important to get in at this stage. I expect working through the
>> release preparation will still take a couple of weeks and we probably
>> have a good chance of closing out all of the remaining ones currently
>> scheduled in that timeframe - but there's no point holding up the
>> release if not.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > I definitely agree - there are a few critical issues that I'd like to
>> > see if we can resolve:
>> >
>> > - The RememberMeManager acquires the HttpServletRequest/Response pair
>> > from the ThreadLocal - I was thinking that might require an API change
>> > to the RememberMeManager to accept it as a method argument or in the
>> > Subject context map.
>> > - 'Run As' is about 50% done. It shouldn't take much longer to finish
>> > - As Brian suggested, his patches would be a nice edition for the 1.0
>> release.
>> >
>> > I agree that most of the other issues won't be done for the 1.0
>> > release, but that's ok - that's what 1.1 will be for or 1.2 or
>> > whatever. It's definitely a good idea to get 1.0 out now to service
>> > the community's needs.
>> >
>> > We're definitely close!
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Les
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> > <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few
>> >> smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do
>> >> before a release, most of them nicely tracked at
>> >> http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing
>> >> that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much
>> >> but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the
>> >> hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here and
>> >> in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area and
>> >> publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you
>> >> would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them
>> >> now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues
>> >> currently scheduled for 1.0
>> >> (
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078
>> )
>> >> to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule
>> >> them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise
>> >> ready for 1.0.0. Agree?
>> >>
>> >> Kalle
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Thanks!
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> Done.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Regards,
>> >>>> Alan
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Les
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <
>> list@toolazydogs.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received
>> stipulations
>> >>>>>> on
>> >>>>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good
>> here.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>> Alan
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend
>> created
>> >>>>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us
>> in
>> >>>>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is
>> >>>>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work,
>> the
>> >>>>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that
>> we
>> >>>>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual
>> property
>> >>>>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but
>> I
>> >>>>>>> think we're ok.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> - Les
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <
>> lhazlewood@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the
>> old
>> >>>>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also
>> >>>>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Les
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> >>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers
>> in the
>> >>>>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of
>> is
>> >>>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project
>> >>>>>>>>> before
>> >>>>>>>>> it
>> >>>>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>> Alan
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear
>> record of
>> >>>>>>>>>> it?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Les
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> >>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from
>> JSecurity
>> >>>>>>>>>>> have
>> >>>>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> incubator,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> members.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> project.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig
>> helped
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all
>> previous
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring
>> all
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else
>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> done?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree
>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to
>> take a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues
>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that,
>> I'd
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but
>> I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what
>> should
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as
>> possible
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing
>> issues.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting.
>> I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Tauren Mills <yo...@gmail.com>.
What kind of priority does OAuth support have? I see there is an issue for
it: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-119. I'd like to see Shiro
support it sooner than later, but then again, I wouldn't want to hold up the
release for it. Is it just a wish for someday, or is it actually a planned
feature?
Tauren
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Ha! I knew that would get the ball rolling :) I'll take care of
> SHIRO-59. Agree with everything Les said - API changes would be
> important to get in at this stage. I expect working through the
> release preparation will still take a couple of weeks and we probably
> have a good chance of closing out all of the remaining ones currently
> scheduled in that timeframe - but there's no point holding up the
> release if not.
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > I definitely agree - there are a few critical issues that I'd like to
> > see if we can resolve:
> >
> > - The RememberMeManager acquires the HttpServletRequest/Response pair
> > from the ThreadLocal - I was thinking that might require an API change
> > to the RememberMeManager to accept it as a method argument or in the
> > Subject context map.
> > - 'Run As' is about 50% done. It shouldn't take much longer to finish
> > - As Brian suggested, his patches would be a nice edition for the 1.0
> release.
> >
> > I agree that most of the other issues won't be done for the 1.0
> > release, but that's ok - that's what 1.1 will be for or 1.2 or
> > whatever. It's definitely a good idea to get 1.0 out now to service
> > the community's needs.
> >
> > We're definitely close!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Les
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> > <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few
> >> smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do
> >> before a release, most of them nicely tracked at
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing
> >> that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much
> >> but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the
> >> hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here and
> >> in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area and
> >> publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you
> >> would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them
> >> now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues
> >> currently scheduled for 1.0
> >> (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078
> )
> >> to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule
> >> them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise
> >> ready for 1.0.0. Agree?
> >>
> >> Kalle
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> Done.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Les
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <
> list@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received
> stipulations
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good
> here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend
> created
> >>>>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us
> in
> >>>>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is
> >>>>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work,
> the
> >>>>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that
> we
> >>>>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual
> property
> >>>>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but
> I
> >>>>>>> think we're ok.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Les
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <
> lhazlewood@apache.org>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the
> old
> >>>>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also
> >>>>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers
> in the
> >>>>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of
> is
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project
> >>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear
> record of
> >>>>>>>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from
> JSecurity
> >>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> incubator,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> members.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> original
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig
> helped
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all
> previous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring
> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else
> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> done?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree
> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to
> take a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues
> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that,
> I'd
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but
> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what
> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as
> possible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing
> issues.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting.
> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Thanks!
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I should have put the book link in the last email:
> http://www.sonatype.com/books/nexus-book/reference/staging.html
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Ah yes - I like the Nexus UI, but I haven't used these features yet.
>> I need to crack open the Nexus documentation to find out how to do
>> this.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hey Les,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Brian,
>> >>
>> >> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>> >> > Create a sub task under:
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>> >>
>> >> Done:
>> >>
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>> >>
>> >> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>> >>
>> >> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>> >> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>> >>
>> >
>> > A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way
>> to
>> > know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>> > deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository
>> in
>> > a read-only mode
>> >
>> > You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI
>> for
>> > this):
>> > http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>> >> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>> >> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>> >> to the release repo?
>> >>
>> >
>> > The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>> > above)
>> > Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository.
>> (and
>> > corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the pointers!
>> >>
>> >> - Les
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com>.
I should have put the book link in the last email:
http://www.sonatype.com/books/nexus-book/reference/staging.html
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
> Ah yes - I like the Nexus UI, but I haven't used these features yet.
> I need to crack open the Nexus documentation to find out how to do
> this.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Les
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hey Les,
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Brian,
> >>
> >> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
> >> > Create a sub task under:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
> >>
> >> Done:
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
> >>
> >> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
> >>
> >> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
> >> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
> >>
> >
> > A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way
> to
> > know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
> > deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository
> in
> > a read-only mode
> >
> > You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI
> for
> > this):
> > http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
> >> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
> >> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
> >> to the release repo?
> >>
> >
> > The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
> > above)
> > Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository.
> (and
> > corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the pointers!
> >>
> >> - Les
> >>
> >
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Ah yes - I like the Nexus UI, but I haven't used these features yet.
I need to crack open the Nexus documentation to find out how to do
this.
Thanks again,
Les
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Les,
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>> > Create a sub task under:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>
>> Done:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>
>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>
>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>
>
> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
> a read-only mode
>
> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
> this):
> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>
>
>>
>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>> to the release repo?
>>
>
> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
> above)
> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>
>> - Les
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Nice! Glad to see this finally up :)
Thanks Kalle!
- Les
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I'm very much in favor of aggregate JavaDocs - as an end-user, I would
>>> hate to have to go to multiple locations to view core JavaDoc vs web
>>> JavaDoc vs Spring-support JavaDoc, etc...
>> Agree. I'm going to put it back and try deploying the site.
>
> FYI: http://incubator.apache.org/shiro/site/ (but I'll change it to
> deploy to /${project.version} and /latest for snapshots).
>
> Kalle
>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Aggregate javadocs or not for the site? Les, at r788750 you had
>>>> commented out the reporting section including aggregate javadoc
>>>> configuration with comment:
>>>> "Ugraded to apache parent pom version 6. Removed retroweaver
>>>> dependencies as Shiro 1.0+ will use JDK 1.5 as its base requirement
>>>> per email thread..."
>>>>
>>>> Was that on purpose?
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure exactly - I assumed it was useful only because it is
>>>>> incredibly useful for me :)
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, I find this very useful:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.springsource.org/documentation
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on that page, I know exactly where to go for documentation
>>>>> related to the particular version of Spring I'm using.
>>>>>
>>>>> My .02,
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The way we did this for JSecurity was to publish each release's
>>>>>>> documentation to its own version specific directory. Then I'd use a
>>>>>>> symlink to point to the 'current' version and/or snapshot. I.E.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://shiro.apache.org/site/current/api
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and in the site directory, you'd have the following directories:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 0.9.2
>>>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>>>> 1.0.3
>>>>>>> 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and each time we published something important, we changed 'current'
>>>>>>> symlink to point to the latest release - it was really nice. Can we
>>>>>>> still do this? Maybe not, but I'm just checking. Will this work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, we could. The symlink probably needs to be created manually (as
>>>>>> opposed to as part of site-deploy.. though with sufficient coding,
>>>>>> anything's possible). Do you have any idea how the users felt about -
>>>>>> were the older docs used at all, was there confusion about which docs
>>>>>> they are browsing etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
>>>>>>>> releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
>>>>>>>> going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
>>>>>>>> steps up :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
>>>>>>>> default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
>>>>>>>> either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
>>>>>>>> url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
>>>>>>>> snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
>>>>>>>> and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
>>>>>>>> we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
>>>>>>>> I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
>>>>>>>> deployed per released version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey Les,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>>>>>>>>>> > Create a sub task under:
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Done:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>>>>>>>>>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
>>>>>>>>> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>>>>>>>>> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
>>>>>>>>> a read-only mode
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
>>>>>>>>> this):
>>>>>>>>> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>>>>>>>>>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>>>>>>>>>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>>>>>>>>>> to the release repo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>>>>>>>>> above)
>>>>>>>>> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
>>>>>>>>> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
P.S. Can you please let me know when you've had the chance to put the
symlinks are up? I'd like to start changing the wiki's in-line
documentation to reference the Shiro public apidocs instead of the old
JSecurity ones. There's no hurry - this is more of a reminder for me
than anything else.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I'm very much in favor of aggregate JavaDocs - as an end-user, I would
>>> hate to have to go to multiple locations to view core JavaDoc vs web
>>> JavaDoc vs Spring-support JavaDoc, etc...
>> Agree. I'm going to put it back and try deploying the site.
>
> FYI: http://incubator.apache.org/shiro/site/ (but I'll change it to
> deploy to /${project.version} and /latest for snapshots).
>
> Kalle
>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Aggregate javadocs or not for the site? Les, at r788750 you had
>>>> commented out the reporting section including aggregate javadoc
>>>> configuration with comment:
>>>> "Ugraded to apache parent pom version 6. Removed retroweaver
>>>> dependencies as Shiro 1.0+ will use JDK 1.5 as its base requirement
>>>> per email thread..."
>>>>
>>>> Was that on purpose?
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure exactly - I assumed it was useful only because it is
>>>>> incredibly useful for me :)
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, I find this very useful:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.springsource.org/documentation
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on that page, I know exactly where to go for documentation
>>>>> related to the particular version of Spring I'm using.
>>>>>
>>>>> My .02,
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The way we did this for JSecurity was to publish each release's
>>>>>>> documentation to its own version specific directory. Then I'd use a
>>>>>>> symlink to point to the 'current' version and/or snapshot. I.E.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://shiro.apache.org/site/current/api
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and in the site directory, you'd have the following directories:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 0.9.2
>>>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>>>> 1.0.3
>>>>>>> 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and each time we published something important, we changed 'current'
>>>>>>> symlink to point to the latest release - it was really nice. Can we
>>>>>>> still do this? Maybe not, but I'm just checking. Will this work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, we could. The symlink probably needs to be created manually (as
>>>>>> opposed to as part of site-deploy.. though with sufficient coding,
>>>>>> anything's possible). Do you have any idea how the users felt about -
>>>>>> were the older docs used at all, was there confusion about which docs
>>>>>> they are browsing etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
>>>>>>>> releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
>>>>>>>> going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
>>>>>>>> steps up :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
>>>>>>>> default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
>>>>>>>> either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
>>>>>>>> url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
>>>>>>>> snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
>>>>>>>> and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
>>>>>>>> we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
>>>>>>>> I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
>>>>>>>> deployed per released version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey Les,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>>>>>>>>>> > Create a sub task under:
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Done:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>>>>>>>>>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
>>>>>>>>> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>>>>>>>>> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
>>>>>>>>> a read-only mode
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
>>>>>>>>> this):
>>>>>>>>> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>>>>>>>>>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>>>>>>>>>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>>>>>>>>>> to the release repo?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>>>>>>>>> above)
>>>>>>>>> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
>>>>>>>>> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm very much in favor of aggregate JavaDocs - as an end-user, I would
>> hate to have to go to multiple locations to view core JavaDoc vs web
>> JavaDoc vs Spring-support JavaDoc, etc...
> Agree. I'm going to put it back and try deploying the site.
FYI: http://incubator.apache.org/shiro/site/ (but I'll change it to
deploy to /${project.version} and /latest for snapshots).
Kalle
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Aggregate javadocs or not for the site? Les, at r788750 you had
>>> commented out the reporting section including aggregate javadoc
>>> configuration with comment:
>>> "Ugraded to apache parent pom version 6. Removed retroweaver
>>> dependencies as Shiro 1.0+ will use JDK 1.5 as its base requirement
>>> per email thread..."
>>>
>>> Was that on purpose?
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure exactly - I assumed it was useful only because it is
>>>> incredibly useful for me :)
>>>>
>>>> For example, I find this very useful:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.springsource.org/documentation
>>>>
>>>> Based on that page, I know exactly where to go for documentation
>>>> related to the particular version of Spring I'm using.
>>>>
>>>> My .02,
>>>>
>>>> Les
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> The way we did this for JSecurity was to publish each release's
>>>>>> documentation to its own version specific directory. Then I'd use a
>>>>>> symlink to point to the 'current' version and/or snapshot. I.E.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://shiro.apache.org/site/current/api
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and in the site directory, you'd have the following directories:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0.9.2
>>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>>> 1.0.3
>>>>>> 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and each time we published something important, we changed 'current'
>>>>>> symlink to point to the latest release - it was really nice. Can we
>>>>>> still do this? Maybe not, but I'm just checking. Will this work?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, we could. The symlink probably needs to be created manually (as
>>>>> opposed to as part of site-deploy.. though with sufficient coding,
>>>>> anything's possible). Do you have any idea how the users felt about -
>>>>> were the older docs used at all, was there confusion about which docs
>>>>> they are browsing etc?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
>>>>>>> releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
>>>>>>> going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
>>>>>>> steps up :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
>>>>>>> default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
>>>>>>> either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
>>>>>>> url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
>>>>>>> snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
>>>>>>> and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
>>>>>>> we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
>>>>>>> I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
>>>>>>> deployed per released version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey Les,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>>>>>>>>> > Create a sub task under:
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Done:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>>>>>>>>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
>>>>>>>> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>>>>>>>> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
>>>>>>>> a read-only mode
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
>>>>>>>> this):
>>>>>>>> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>>>>>>>>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>>>>>>>>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>>>>>>>>> to the release repo?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>>>>>>>> above)
>>>>>>>> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
>>>>>>>> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think I did that because of the increased build time, but I can't
> remember exactly.
Yea it takes a long time but only if you build the site.
> I'm very much in favor of aggregate JavaDocs - as an end-user, I would
> hate to have to go to multiple locations to view core JavaDoc vs web
> JavaDoc vs Spring-support JavaDoc, etc...
Agree. I'm going to put it back and try deploying the site.
Kalle
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Aggregate javadocs or not for the site? Les, at r788750 you had
>> commented out the reporting section including aggregate javadoc
>> configuration with comment:
>> "Ugraded to apache parent pom version 6. Removed retroweaver
>> dependencies as Shiro 1.0+ will use JDK 1.5 as its base requirement
>> per email thread..."
>>
>> Was that on purpose?
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure exactly - I assumed it was useful only because it is
>>> incredibly useful for me :)
>>>
>>> For example, I find this very useful:
>>>
>>> http://www.springsource.org/documentation
>>>
>>> Based on that page, I know exactly where to go for documentation
>>> related to the particular version of Spring I'm using.
>>>
>>> My .02,
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> The way we did this for JSecurity was to publish each release's
>>>>> documentation to its own version specific directory. Then I'd use a
>>>>> symlink to point to the 'current' version and/or snapshot. I.E.:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://shiro.apache.org/site/current/api
>>>>>
>>>>> and in the site directory, you'd have the following directories:
>>>>>
>>>>> 0.9.2
>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>> 1.0.3
>>>>> 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>
>>>>> and each time we published something important, we changed 'current'
>>>>> symlink to point to the latest release - it was really nice. Can we
>>>>> still do this? Maybe not, but I'm just checking. Will this work?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, we could. The symlink probably needs to be created manually (as
>>>> opposed to as part of site-deploy.. though with sufficient coding,
>>>> anything's possible). Do you have any idea how the users felt about -
>>>> were the older docs used at all, was there confusion about which docs
>>>> they are browsing etc?
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
>>>>>> releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
>>>>>> going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
>>>>>> steps up :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
>>>>>> default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
>>>>>> either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
>>>>>> url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
>>>>>> snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
>>>>>> and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
>>>>>> we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
>>>>>> I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
>>>>>> deployed per released version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Les,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>>>>>>>> > Create a sub task under:
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Done:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>>>>>>>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
>>>>>>> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>>>>>>> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
>>>>>>> a read-only mode
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
>>>>>>> this):
>>>>>>> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>>>>>>>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>>>>>>>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>>>>>>>> to the release repo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>>>>>>> above)
>>>>>>> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
>>>>>>> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
I think I did that because of the increased build time, but I can't
remember exactly.
I'm very much in favor of aggregate JavaDocs - as an end-user, I would
hate to have to go to multiple locations to view core JavaDoc vs web
JavaDoc vs Spring-support JavaDoc, etc...
- Les
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aggregate javadocs or not for the site? Les, at r788750 you had
> commented out the reporting section including aggregate javadoc
> configuration with comment:
> "Ugraded to apache parent pom version 6. Removed retroweaver
> dependencies as Shiro 1.0+ will use JDK 1.5 as its base requirement
> per email thread..."
>
> Was that on purpose?
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm not sure exactly - I assumed it was useful only because it is
>> incredibly useful for me :)
>>
>> For example, I find this very useful:
>>
>> http://www.springsource.org/documentation
>>
>> Based on that page, I know exactly where to go for documentation
>> related to the particular version of Spring I'm using.
>>
>> My .02,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> The way we did this for JSecurity was to publish each release's
>>>> documentation to its own version specific directory. Then I'd use a
>>>> symlink to point to the 'current' version and/or snapshot. I.E.:
>>>>
>>>> http://shiro.apache.org/site/current/api
>>>>
>>>> and in the site directory, you'd have the following directories:
>>>>
>>>> 0.9.2
>>>> 1.0.0
>>>> 1.0.3
>>>> 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
>>>>
>>>> and each time we published something important, we changed 'current'
>>>> symlink to point to the latest release - it was really nice. Can we
>>>> still do this? Maybe not, but I'm just checking. Will this work?
>>>
>>> Yeah, we could. The symlink probably needs to be created manually (as
>>> opposed to as part of site-deploy.. though with sufficient coding,
>>> anything's possible). Do you have any idea how the users felt about -
>>> were the older docs used at all, was there confusion about which docs
>>> they are browsing etc?
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
>>>>> releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
>>>>> going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
>>>>> steps up :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
>>>>> default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
>>>>> either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
>>>>> url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
>>>>> snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
>>>>> and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
>>>>> we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
>>>>> I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
>>>>> deployed per released version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Les,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>>>>>>> > Create a sub task under:
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Done:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>>>>>>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
>>>>>> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>>>>>> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
>>>>>> a read-only mode
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
>>>>>> this):
>>>>>> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>>>>>>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>>>>>>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>>>>>>> to the release repo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>>>>>> above)
>>>>>> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
>>>>>> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
Aggregate javadocs or not for the site? Les, at r788750 you had
commented out the reporting section including aggregate javadoc
configuration with comment:
"Ugraded to apache parent pom version 6. Removed retroweaver
dependencies as Shiro 1.0+ will use JDK 1.5 as its base requirement
per email thread..."
Was that on purpose?
Kalle
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly - I assumed it was useful only because it is
> incredibly useful for me :)
>
> For example, I find this very useful:
>
> http://www.springsource.org/documentation
>
> Based on that page, I know exactly where to go for documentation
> related to the particular version of Spring I'm using.
>
> My .02,
>
> Les
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> The way we did this for JSecurity was to publish each release's
>>> documentation to its own version specific directory. Then I'd use a
>>> symlink to point to the 'current' version and/or snapshot. I.E.:
>>>
>>> http://shiro.apache.org/site/current/api
>>>
>>> and in the site directory, you'd have the following directories:
>>>
>>> 0.9.2
>>> 1.0.0
>>> 1.0.3
>>> 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> and each time we published something important, we changed 'current'
>>> symlink to point to the latest release - it was really nice. Can we
>>> still do this? Maybe not, but I'm just checking. Will this work?
>>
>> Yeah, we could. The symlink probably needs to be created manually (as
>> opposed to as part of site-deploy.. though with sufficient coding,
>> anything's possible). Do you have any idea how the users felt about -
>> were the older docs used at all, was there confusion about which docs
>> they are browsing etc?
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
>>>> releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
>>>> going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
>>>> steps up :)
>>>>
>>>> Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
>>>> default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
>>>> either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
>>>> url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
>>>> snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
>>>> and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
>>>> we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
>>>> I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
>>>> deployed per released version.
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Les,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>>>>>> > Create a sub task under:
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Done:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>>>>>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
>>>>> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>>>>> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
>>>>> a read-only mode
>>>>>
>>>>> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
>>>>> this):
>>>>> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>>>>>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>>>>>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>>>>>> to the release repo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>>>>> above)
>>>>> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
>>>>> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
I'm not sure exactly - I assumed it was useful only because it is
incredibly useful for me :)
For example, I find this very useful:
http://www.springsource.org/documentation
Based on that page, I know exactly where to go for documentation
related to the particular version of Spring I'm using.
My .02,
Les
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> The way we did this for JSecurity was to publish each release's
>> documentation to its own version specific directory. Then I'd use a
>> symlink to point to the 'current' version and/or snapshot. I.E.:
>>
>> http://shiro.apache.org/site/current/api
>>
>> and in the site directory, you'd have the following directories:
>>
>> 0.9.2
>> 1.0.0
>> 1.0.3
>> 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> and each time we published something important, we changed 'current'
>> symlink to point to the latest release - it was really nice. Can we
>> still do this? Maybe not, but I'm just checking. Will this work?
>
> Yeah, we could. The symlink probably needs to be created manually (as
> opposed to as part of site-deploy.. though with sufficient coding,
> anything's possible). Do you have any idea how the users felt about -
> were the older docs used at all, was there confusion about which docs
> they are browsing etc?
>
> Kalle
>
>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
>>> releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
>>> going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
>>> steps up :)
>>>
>>> Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
>>> default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
>>> either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
>>> url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
>>> snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
>>> and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
>>> we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
>>> I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
>>> deployed per released version.
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey Les,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>
>>>>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>>>>> > Create a sub task under:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>>>>
>>>>> Done:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>>>>
>>>>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>>>>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
>>>> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>>>> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
>>>> a read-only mode
>>>>
>>>> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
>>>> this):
>>>> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>>>>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>>>>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>>>>> to the release repo?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>>>> above)
>>>> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
>>>> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>>>
>>>>> - Les
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> The way we did this for JSecurity was to publish each release's
> documentation to its own version specific directory. Then I'd use a
> symlink to point to the 'current' version and/or snapshot. I.E.:
>
> http://shiro.apache.org/site/current/api
>
> and in the site directory, you'd have the following directories:
>
> 0.9.2
> 1.0.0
> 1.0.3
> 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
>
> and each time we published something important, we changed 'current'
> symlink to point to the latest release - it was really nice. Can we
> still do this? Maybe not, but I'm just checking. Will this work?
Yeah, we could. The symlink probably needs to be created manually (as
opposed to as part of site-deploy.. though with sufficient coding,
anything's possible). Do you have any idea how the users felt about -
were the older docs used at all, was there confusion about which docs
they are browsing etc?
Kalle
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
>> releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
>> going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
>> steps up :)
>>
>> Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
>> default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
>> either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
>> url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
>> snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
>> and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
>> we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
>> I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
>> deployed per released version.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hey Les,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>
>>>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>>>> > Create a sub task under:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>>>
>>>> Done:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>>>
>>>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>>>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>>>
>>>
>>> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
>>> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>>> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
>>> a read-only mode
>>>
>>> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
>>> this):
>>> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>>>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>>>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>>>> to the release repo?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>>> above)
>>> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
>>> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>>
>>>> - Les
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
The way we did this for JSecurity was to publish each release's
documentation to its own version specific directory. Then I'd use a
symlink to point to the 'current' version and/or snapshot. I.E.:
http://shiro.apache.org/site/current/api
and in the site directory, you'd have the following directories:
0.9.2
1.0.0
1.0.3
1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
and each time we published something important, we changed 'current'
symlink to point to the latest release - it was really nice. Can we
still do this? Maybe not, but I'm just checking. Will this work?
- Les
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
> releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
> going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
> steps up :)
>
> Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
> default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
> either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
> url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
> snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
> and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
> we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
> I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
> deployed per released version.
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey Les,
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>>> > Create a sub task under:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>>
>>> Done:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>>
>>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>>
>>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>>
>>
>> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
>> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
>> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
>> a read-only mode
>>
>> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
>> this):
>> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>>> to the release repo?
>>>
>>
>> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
>> above)
>> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
>> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>
>>> - Les
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
Thanks to Brian for detailed instructions. I'm familiar with staged
releases and Nexus so we should be able to get this done. I assume I'm
going to cut the release when the time comes unless somebody else
steps up :)
Les, as Brian noted site's somewhat separate from the release but by
default it's published at release time. Basically we have two options,
either we publish just snapshots of the site (i.e. exactly one site
url) or a site per release (i.e. site/1.0.0) and single url for
snapshots, the latter can be achieved with profiles. Multiple archived
and released sites could be useful (but also confusing) for users when
we have multiple releases available, but just for simplicity's sake
I'd go with a single site url at first. The javadocs are in any case
deployed per released version.
Kalle
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Les,
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
>> > Create a sub task under:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>>
>> Done:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>>
>> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>>
>> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
>> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>>
>
> A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
> know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
> deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
> a read-only mode
>
> You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
> this):
> http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>
>
>>
>> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
>> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
>> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
>> to the release repo?
>>
>
> The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
> above)
> Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
> corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>
>> - Les
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com>.
Hey Les,
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> > To get everything setup for a staging repository
> > Create a sub task under:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
>
> Done:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
>
> > After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
>
> What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
> does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
>
A single maven deploy is a bunch of stateless deploys so there is no way to
know when maven is done deploying all the artifacts. So after you do a
deploy you need to tell Nexus you are finished. This puts the repository in
a read-only mode
You could do this all from a maven plugin (but personally I like the UI for
this):
http://plugins.sonatype.org/nexus-maven-plugin/usage-staging.html
>
> Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
> Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
> release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
> to the release repo?
>
The actual promoting is also just a couple clicks (or the plugin listed
above)
Upon promotion all the artifacts are moved into the release repository. (and
corresponding metadata is merged i.e. maven-metadata.xml)
>
> Thanks for the pointers!
>
> - Les
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Hi Brian,
> To get everything setup for a staging repository
> Create a sub task under: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
Done:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2488
> After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
What do you mean by close the staging repo? Just ensure that the team
does not deploy to staging to prevent overwrites?
Also, once the artifacts are in staging, how is promotion done in
Nexus? I mean, let's say that the community votes to approve the
release. How do you propagate those voted-upon artifacts from staging
to the release repo?
Thanks for the pointers!
- Les
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com>.
To get everything setup for a staging repository at
repository.apache.org(RAO) i.e. permissions copied over from SVN, etc
Create a sub task under: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1896
The deploy URL will be:
https://repository.apache.org/service/local/staging/deploy/maven2/
After the deploy you need to close the staging repo, and promote it
(typically between the staging and promoting is where the voting happens,
not sure what is needed for the incubator though)
Apache handles the sites differently, i think you need to deploy to and it
gets moved over hourly or something like that.
<url>scp://people.apache.org/www/incubator.apache.org/shiro/</url>
Any problems on the nexus side let me know.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kalle,
>
> This is really good stuff - thanks for figuring this stuff out :) I
> agree that we should go the staged release route for safety, given
> that we haven't had our first approved release yet.
>
> How do the staged releases work in relation to the site? Or do they?
> My assumption is that for a staged release, the maven created
> artifacts go into a special repository in Nexus. Then after the
> release is approved, someone clicks a button, which moves them to the
> public repo.
>
> Is this correct? Is the site handled differently?
>
> - Les
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've been looking at deploying the Maven site as secondary form of
> > documentation (cwiki being primary). After reading through
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html, I'm still not hyper
> > convinced that the produced Maven site would need to be fully
> > committed to svn. I didn't see any project currently in Incubator
> > who'd be using Maven to the fullest and though Chemistry has deployed
> > a Maven as their primary sits, it's not in svn and they don't have
> > distributionmanagement set up at all and Shindig, that graduated last
> > year, is directly deploying via scp. So, unless I hear otherwise, I'm
> > going to add this to the master pom:
> > <distributionManagement>
> > <site>
> > <id>incubator.website</id>
> > <name>Apache Incubator Site</name>
> > <url>scp://
people.apache.org/www/incubator.apache.org/shiro/site</url>
> > </site>
> > </distributionManagement>
> >
> > I'm not sure if there's any common ids that should be used. Shindig
> > uses "apache.website" - I didn't find any documentation on that, does
> > anyone know better? I already deployed the top pom non-recursively as
> > a test and verified that the permissions are set correctly (I'm the
> > owner but write allowed for incubator group).
> >
> > I've also taken a look at the rules regarding distributing releases
> > and it seems that the apache parent pom and the instructions strongly
> > suggest using staged releases as opposed to blind releases (which we
> > earlier talked about doing at first). It's a bit more work but gives
> > us a chance to evaluate the produced binaries before they go out
> > publicly so I guess it's better to do it right from the beginning.
> > I'll work on release preparation but I think we are still a week or
> > two away from being able to release.
> >
> > Kalle
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> > <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ha! I knew that would get the ball rolling :) I'll take care of
> >> SHIRO-59. Agree with everything Les said - API changes would be
> >> important to get in at this stage. I expect working through the
> >> release preparation will still take a couple of weeks and we probably
> >> have a good chance of closing out all of the remaining ones currently
> >> scheduled in that timeframe - but there's no point holding up the
> >> release if not.
> >>
> >> Kalle
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>> I definitely agree - there are a few critical issues that I'd like to
> >>> see if we can resolve:
> >>>
> >>> - The RememberMeManager acquires the HttpServletRequest/Response pair
> >>> from the ThreadLocal - I was thinking that might require an API change
> >>> to the RememberMeManager to accept it as a method argument or in the
> >>> Subject context map.
> >>> - 'Run As' is about 50% done. It shouldn't take much longer to finish
> >>> - As Brian suggested, his patches would be a nice edition for the 1.0
release.
> >>>
> >>> I agree that most of the other issues won't be done for the 1.0
> >>> release, but that's ok - that's what 1.1 will be for or 1.2 or
> >>> whatever. It's definitely a good idea to get 1.0 out now to service
> >>> the community's needs.
> >>>
> >>> We're definitely close!
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Les
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> >>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few
> >>>> smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do
> >>>> before a release, most of them nicely tracked at
> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing
> >>>> that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much
> >>>> but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the
> >>>> hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here
and
> >>>> in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area
and
> >>>> publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you
> >>>> would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them
> >>>> now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues
> >>>> currently scheduled for 1.0
> >>>> (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078
)
> >>>> to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule
> >>>> them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise
> >>>> ready for 1.0.0. Agree?
> >>>>
> >>>> Kalle
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <
list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Done.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <
list@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received
stipulations
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good
here.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend
created
> >>>>>>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for
us in
> >>>>>>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is
> >>>>>>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo
work, the
> >>>>>>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think
that we
> >>>>>>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual
property
> >>>>>>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL,
but I
> >>>>>>>>> think we're ok.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> - Les
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <
lhazlewood@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the
old
> >>>>>>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each
also
> >>>>>>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from
committers in the
> >>>>>>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure
of is
> >>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity
project
> >>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear
record of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from
JSecurity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously
to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to
the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig
helped
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all
previous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of
transferring all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else
that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree
that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going
to take a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important
issues that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that,
I'd
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity
to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included
but I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what
should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as
possible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we
can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing
issues.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL
vetting. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from
the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the
requisite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Hi Kalle,
This is really good stuff - thanks for figuring this stuff out :) I
agree that we should go the staged release route for safety, given
that we haven't had our first approved release yet.
How do the staged releases work in relation to the site? Or do they?
My assumption is that for a staged release, the maven created
artifacts go into a special repository in Nexus. Then after the
release is approved, someone clicks a button, which moves them to the
public repo.
Is this correct? Is the site handled differently?
- Les
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been looking at deploying the Maven site as secondary form of
> documentation (cwiki being primary). After reading through
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html, I'm still not hyper
> convinced that the produced Maven site would need to be fully
> committed to svn. I didn't see any project currently in Incubator
> who'd be using Maven to the fullest and though Chemistry has deployed
> a Maven as their primary sits, it's not in svn and they don't have
> distributionmanagement set up at all and Shindig, that graduated last
> year, is directly deploying via scp. So, unless I hear otherwise, I'm
> going to add this to the master pom:
> <distributionManagement>
> <site>
> <id>incubator.website</id>
> <name>Apache Incubator Site</name>
> <url>scp://people.apache.org/www/incubator.apache.org/shiro/site</url>
> </site>
> </distributionManagement>
>
> I'm not sure if there's any common ids that should be used. Shindig
> uses "apache.website" - I didn't find any documentation on that, does
> anyone know better? I already deployed the top pom non-recursively as
> a test and verified that the permissions are set correctly (I'm the
> owner but write allowed for incubator group).
>
> I've also taken a look at the rules regarding distributing releases
> and it seems that the apache parent pom and the instructions strongly
> suggest using staged releases as opposed to blind releases (which we
> earlier talked about doing at first). It's a bit more work but gives
> us a chance to evaluate the produced binaries before they go out
> publicly so I guess it's better to do it right from the beginning.
> I'll work on release preparation but I think we are still a week or
> two away from being able to release.
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ha! I knew that would get the ball rolling :) I'll take care of
>> SHIRO-59. Agree with everything Les said - API changes would be
>> important to get in at this stage. I expect working through the
>> release preparation will still take a couple of weeks and we probably
>> have a good chance of closing out all of the remaining ones currently
>> scheduled in that timeframe - but there's no point holding up the
>> release if not.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I definitely agree - there are a few critical issues that I'd like to
>>> see if we can resolve:
>>>
>>> - The RememberMeManager acquires the HttpServletRequest/Response pair
>>> from the ThreadLocal - I was thinking that might require an API change
>>> to the RememberMeManager to accept it as a method argument or in the
>>> Subject context map.
>>> - 'Run As' is about 50% done. It shouldn't take much longer to finish
>>> - As Brian suggested, his patches would be a nice edition for the 1.0 release.
>>>
>>> I agree that most of the other issues won't be done for the 1.0
>>> release, but that's ok - that's what 1.1 will be for or 1.2 or
>>> whatever. It's definitely a good idea to get 1.0 out now to service
>>> the community's needs.
>>>
>>> We're definitely close!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few
>>>> smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do
>>>> before a release, most of them nicely tracked at
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing
>>>> that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much
>>>> but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the
>>>> hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here and
>>>> in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area and
>>>> publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you
>>>> would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them
>>>> now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues
>>>> currently scheduled for 1.0
>>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078)
>>>> to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule
>>>> them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise
>>>> ready for 1.0.0. Agree?
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received stipulations
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend created
>>>>>>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us in
>>>>>>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is
>>>>>>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work, the
>>>>>>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that we
>>>>>>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual property
>>>>>>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but I
>>>>>>>>> think we're ok.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the old
>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also
>>>>>>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers in the
>>>>>>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of is
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project
>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear record of
>>>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from JSecurity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig helped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
I've been looking at deploying the Maven site as secondary form of
documentation (cwiki being primary). After reading through
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html, I'm still not hyper
convinced that the produced Maven site would need to be fully
committed to svn. I didn't see any project currently in Incubator
who'd be using Maven to the fullest and though Chemistry has deployed
a Maven as their primary sits, it's not in svn and they don't have
distributionmanagement set up at all and Shindig, that graduated last
year, is directly deploying via scp. So, unless I hear otherwise, I'm
going to add this to the master pom:
<distributionManagement>
<site>
<id>incubator.website</id>
<name>Apache Incubator Site</name>
<url>scp://people.apache.org/www/incubator.apache.org/shiro/site</url>
</site>
</distributionManagement>
I'm not sure if there's any common ids that should be used. Shindig
uses "apache.website" - I didn't find any documentation on that, does
anyone know better? I already deployed the top pom non-recursively as
a test and verified that the permissions are set correctly (I'm the
owner but write allowed for incubator group).
I've also taken a look at the rules regarding distributing releases
and it seems that the apache parent pom and the instructions strongly
suggest using staged releases as opposed to blind releases (which we
earlier talked about doing at first). It's a bit more work but gives
us a chance to evaluate the produced binaries before they go out
publicly so I guess it's better to do it right from the beginning.
I'll work on release preparation but I think we are still a week or
two away from being able to release.
Kalle
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ha! I knew that would get the ball rolling :) I'll take care of
> SHIRO-59. Agree with everything Les said - API changes would be
> important to get in at this stage. I expect working through the
> release preparation will still take a couple of weeks and we probably
> have a good chance of closing out all of the remaining ones currently
> scheduled in that timeframe - but there's no point holding up the
> release if not.
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I definitely agree - there are a few critical issues that I'd like to
>> see if we can resolve:
>>
>> - The RememberMeManager acquires the HttpServletRequest/Response pair
>> from the ThreadLocal - I was thinking that might require an API change
>> to the RememberMeManager to accept it as a method argument or in the
>> Subject context map.
>> - 'Run As' is about 50% done. It shouldn't take much longer to finish
>> - As Brian suggested, his patches would be a nice edition for the 1.0 release.
>>
>> I agree that most of the other issues won't be done for the 1.0
>> release, but that's ok - that's what 1.1 will be for or 1.2 or
>> whatever. It's definitely a good idea to get 1.0 out now to service
>> the community's needs.
>>
>> We're definitely close!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few
>>> smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do
>>> before a release, most of them nicely tracked at
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing
>>> that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much
>>> but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the
>>> hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here and
>>> in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area and
>>> publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you
>>> would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them
>>> now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues
>>> currently scheduled for 1.0
>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078)
>>> to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule
>>> them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise
>>> ready for 1.0.0. Agree?
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>>>> Done.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received stipulations
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend created
>>>>>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us in
>>>>>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is
>>>>>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work, the
>>>>>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that we
>>>>>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual property
>>>>>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but I
>>>>>>>> think we're ok.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the old
>>>>>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also
>>>>>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers in the
>>>>>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of is
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project
>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear record of
>>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from JSecurity
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig helped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
Ha! I knew that would get the ball rolling :) I'll take care of
SHIRO-59. Agree with everything Les said - API changes would be
important to get in at this stage. I expect working through the
release preparation will still take a couple of weeks and we probably
have a good chance of closing out all of the remaining ones currently
scheduled in that timeframe - but there's no point holding up the
release if not.
Kalle
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> I definitely agree - there are a few critical issues that I'd like to
> see if we can resolve:
>
> - The RememberMeManager acquires the HttpServletRequest/Response pair
> from the ThreadLocal - I was thinking that might require an API change
> to the RememberMeManager to accept it as a method argument or in the
> Subject context map.
> - 'Run As' is about 50% done. It shouldn't take much longer to finish
> - As Brian suggested, his patches would be a nice edition for the 1.0 release.
>
> I agree that most of the other issues won't be done for the 1.0
> release, but that's ok - that's what 1.1 will be for or 1.2 or
> whatever. It's definitely a good idea to get 1.0 out now to service
> the community's needs.
>
> We're definitely close!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Les
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few
>> smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do
>> before a release, most of them nicely tracked at
>> http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing
>> that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much
>> but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the
>> hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here and
>> in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area and
>> publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you
>> would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them
>> now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues
>> currently scheduled for 1.0
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078)
>> to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule
>> them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise
>> ready for 1.0.0. Agree?
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>>> Done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received stipulations
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend created
>>>>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us in
>>>>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is
>>>>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work, the
>>>>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that we
>>>>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual property
>>>>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but I
>>>>>>> think we're ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the old
>>>>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also
>>>>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers in the
>>>>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of is
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear record of
>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from JSecurity
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to
>>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the
>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project
>>>>>>>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig helped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
I definitely agree - there are a few critical issues that I'd like to
see if we can resolve:
- The RememberMeManager acquires the HttpServletRequest/Response pair
from the ThreadLocal - I was thinking that might require an API change
to the RememberMeManager to accept it as a method argument or in the
Subject context map.
- 'Run As' is about 50% done. It shouldn't take much longer to finish
- As Brian suggested, his patches would be a nice edition for the 1.0 release.
I agree that most of the other issues won't be done for the 1.0
release, but that's ok - that's what 1.1 will be for or 1.2 or
whatever. It's definitely a good idea to get 1.0 out now to service
the community's needs.
We're definitely close!
Cheers,
Les
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few
> smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do
> before a release, most of them nicely tracked at
> http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing
> that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much
> but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the
> hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here and
> in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area and
> publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you
> would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them
> now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues
> currently scheduled for 1.0
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078)
> to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule
> them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise
> ready for 1.0.0. Agree?
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>> Done.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>
>>>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue?
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Les
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received stipulations
>>>>> on
>>>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend created
>>>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us in
>>>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is
>>>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work, the
>>>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that we
>>>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual property
>>>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but I
>>>>>> think we're ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the old
>>>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also
>>>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers in the
>>>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear record of
>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from JSecurity
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to
>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the
>>>>>>>>>>> incubator,
>>>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project
>>>>>>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig helped
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> done?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Preparing for our first release
Posted by Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com>.
I know I am a bit partial, but I would like to see SHIRO-59 (patch attached)
get in.
-Brian
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I think it's a high time to do our first release. There's quite a few
> smallish organizational and/or configuration items we need to do
> before a release, most of them nicely tracked at
> http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html. Color-wise, we are not doing
> that bad but we could do better. Don't care about the all green much
> but the page is tracking the right items, so I just picked up the
> hammer and I'll start swinging. I'll be updating the progress here and
> in case I run into issues. I'll first create the distribution area and
> publish our site docs there. If there are any open issues any of you
> would like to get closed before 1.0.0 better start working on them
> now.. I don't think we are going to wait for all of the issues
> currently scheduled for 1.0
> (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310950&fixfor=12314078
> )
> to be completed unless they are critical/blocker. We'll just schedule
> them for a later point release if not done until we are otherwise
> ready for 1.0.0. Agree?
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> wrote:
> >> Done.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>
> >>> In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue?
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Les
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <
> list@toolazydogs.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received
> stipulations
> >>>> on
> >>>> its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good
> here.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend
> created
> >>>>> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us in
> >>>>> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is
> >>>>> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work,
> the
> >>>>> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that we
> >>>>> need a CLA/sign-off from him.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual property
> >>>>> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but I
> >>>>> think we're ok.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Les
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <
> lhazlewood@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the old
> >>>>>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also
> >>>>>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers in
> the
> >>>>>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of
> is
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project
> >>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> arrived at the Incubator.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear record
> of
> >>>>>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from
> JSecurity
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>> filed a license agreement then I think we're good.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to
> >>>>>>>>>> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the
> >>>>>>>>>> incubator,
> >>>>>>>>>> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> HTH,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project
> >>>>>>>>>>> members.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the
> >>>>>>>>>>> original
> >>>>>>>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig
> helped
> >>>>>>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all
> previous
> >>>>>>>>>>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring
> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> needs
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> done?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Les
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to
> take a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crack
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues
> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as
> possible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing
> issues.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> recall
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> original
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> authors
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> were
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> properly filed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>