[VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi guys,

I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail

The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)

This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.

Thanks,
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Up?

Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi guys,

I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail

The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)

This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.

Thanks,
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

John D. Ament-2
-1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Up?

Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi guys,

I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail

The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)

This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.

Thanks,
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
@John: what's the questionably part?

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
-1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Up?

Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi guys,

I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail

The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)

This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.

Thanks,
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

John D. Ament
It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
@John: what's the questionably part?


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
-1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Up?

Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi guys,

I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail

The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)

This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.

Thanks,
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
@John: what's the questionably part?


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
-1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Up?

Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi guys,

I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail

The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)

This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.

Thanks,
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Mark Struberg
Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.

Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> @John: what's the questionably part?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Up?
>
> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
>
> The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
>
> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>
> Thanks,
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau


Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.

We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.


Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> @John: what's the questionably part?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Up?
>
> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
>
> The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
>
> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>
> Thanks,
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

jlmonteiro
I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.

It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.



Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.

We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.


Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> @John: what's the questionably part?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Up?
>
> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
>
> The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
>
> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>
> Thanks,
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau


Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.

Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.
 

It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.



Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.

We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.


Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> @John: what's the questionably part?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Up?
>
> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
>
> The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
>
> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>
> Thanks,
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

jlmonteiro
ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos

Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.

Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.
 

It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.



Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.

We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.


Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> @John: what's the questionably part?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Up?
>
> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
>
> The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
>
> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>
> Thanks,
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
@John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need?
@Mark: any vote? ;)

Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos

Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.

Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.
 

It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.



Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.

We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.


Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> @John: what's the questionably part?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Up?
>
> Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
>
> The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
>
> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>
> Thanks,
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Mark Struberg
I already voted +1

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> @John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need?
> @Mark: any vote? ;)
>
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos
>
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
> Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.
>
> Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.
>  
>
> It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
> But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.
>
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.
>
> We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.
>
>
> Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > @John: what's the questionably part?
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Up?
> >
> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
> >
> > The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> > The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> > For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> > My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
> >
> > This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

John D. Ament
I'll go with a +1 if you're going to raise the PR upstream to fix the eclipse JAR

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 2:11 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I already voted +1

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> @John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need?
> @Mark: any vote? ;)
>
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos
>
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
> Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.
>
> Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.

>
> It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
> But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.
>
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.
>
> We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.
>
>
> Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > @John: what's the questionably part?
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Up?
> >
> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
> >
> > The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> > The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> > For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> > My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
> >
> > This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi John,

Created https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/95, it is not a PR but hope it covers the issue enough.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le mer. 6 juin 2018 à 13:34, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I'll go with a +1 if you're going to raise the PR upstream to fix the eclipse JAR

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 2:11 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I already voted +1

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> @John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need?
> @Mark: any vote? ;)
>
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos
>
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
> Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.
>
> Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.

>
> It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
> But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.
>
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.
>
> We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.
>
>
> Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > @John: what's the questionably part?
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Up?
> >
> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
> >
> > The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> > The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> > For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> > My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
> >
> > This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Do we want to reroll this one without the api? Since we are almost done i'd like to avoid another vote without any change impacting users but worse case i can do it next week.

Le mer. 6 juin 2018 13:50, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi John,

Created https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/95, it is not a PR but hope it covers the issue enough.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le mer. 6 juin 2018 à 13:34, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I'll go with a +1 if you're going to raise the PR upstream to fix the eclipse JAR

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 2:11 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I already voted +1

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> @John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need?
> @Mark: any vote? ;)
>
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos
>
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
> Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.
>
> Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.

>
> It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
> But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.
>
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>
> Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.
>
> We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.
>
>
> Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > @John: what's the questionably part?
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Up?
> >
> > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
> >
> > The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> > The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> > For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> > My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
> >
> > This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Mark Struberg
the api is already dropped in our repo, right?

If so I'll can do a release re-roll.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 10.06.2018 um 20:02 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> Do we want to reroll this one without the api? Since we are almost done i'd like to avoid another vote without any change impacting users but worse case i can do it next week.
>
> Le mer. 6 juin 2018 13:50, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi John,
>
> Created https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/95, it is not a PR but hope it covers the issue enough.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le mer. 6 juin 2018 à 13:34, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> I'll go with a +1 if you're going to raise the PR upstream to fix the eclipse JAR
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 2:11 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I already voted +1
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > @John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need?
> > @Mark: any vote? ;)
> >
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos
> >
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
> > Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.
> >
> > Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.
> >  
> >
> > It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
> > But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.
> >
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.
> >
> > We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.
> >
> >
> > Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > @John: what's the questionably part?
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > Up?
> > >
> > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
> > >
> > > The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> > > The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> > > For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> > > My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
> > >
> > > This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Yep, all ready

Le dim. 10 juin 2018 20:35, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
the api is already dropped in our repo, right?

If so I'll can do a release re-roll.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 10.06.2018 um 20:02 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> Do we want to reroll this one without the api? Since we are almost done i'd like to avoid another vote without any change impacting users but worse case i can do it next week.
>
> Le mer. 6 juin 2018 13:50, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi John,
>
> Created https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/95, it is not a PR but hope it covers the issue enough.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le mer. 6 juin 2018 à 13:34, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> I'll go with a +1 if you're going to raise the PR upstream to fix the eclipse JAR
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 2:11 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I already voted +1
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > @John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need?
> > @Mark: any vote? ;)
> >
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos
> >
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
> > Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.
> >
> > Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.
> > 
> >
> > It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
> > But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.
> >
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.
> >
> > We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.
> >
> >
> > Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > @John: what's the questionably part?
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > Up?
> > >
> > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
> > >
> > > The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> > > The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> > > For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> > > My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
> > >
> > > This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[CANCEL] [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Will reroll without the api to avoid that discussion and to hang the release 1 month for no technical reason, be ready to vote ;)

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le dim. 10 juin 2018 à 23:18, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Yep, all ready

Le dim. 10 juin 2018 20:35, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
the api is already dropped in our repo, right?

If so I'll can do a release re-roll.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 10.06.2018 um 20:02 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> Do we want to reroll this one without the api? Since we are almost done i'd like to avoid another vote without any change impacting users but worse case i can do it next week.
>
> Le mer. 6 juin 2018 13:50, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi John,
>
> Created https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/95, it is not a PR but hope it covers the issue enough.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le mer. 6 juin 2018 à 13:34, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> I'll go with a +1 if you're going to raise the PR upstream to fix the eclipse JAR
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 2:11 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I already voted +1
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > @John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need?
> > @Mark: any vote? ;)
> >
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos
> >
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
> > Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.
> >
> > Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.
> > 
> >
> > It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
> > But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.
> >
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.
> >
> > We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.
> >
> >
> > Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > @John: what's the questionably part?
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > Up?
> > >
> > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
> > >
> > > The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> > > The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> > > For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> > > My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
> > >
> > > This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Release JWT Auth 1.0.0

jlmonteiro
Thanks Romain

Le mer. 13 juin 2018 à 20:13, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Will reroll without the api to avoid that discussion and to hang the release 1 month for no technical reason, be ready to vote ;)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le dim. 10 juin 2018 à 23:18, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Yep, all ready

Le dim. 10 juin 2018 20:35, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
the api is already dropped in our repo, right?

If so I'll can do a release re-roll.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 10.06.2018 um 20:02 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
> Do we want to reroll this one without the api? Since we are almost done i'd like to avoid another vote without any change impacting users but worse case i can do it next week.
>
> Le mer. 6 juin 2018 13:50, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi John,
>
> Created https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/95, it is not a PR but hope it covers the issue enough.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le mer. 6 juin 2018 à 13:34, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> I'll go with a +1 if you're going to raise the PR upstream to fix the eclipse JAR
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 2:11 AM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I already voted +1
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 05.06.2018 um 21:35 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > @John: do you change your -1 anf if not what would it need?
> > @Mark: any vote? ;)
> >
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 14:40, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > ok then +1 if as we discussed, we will try to push a PR to Eclipse so we can yank the APIs from our repos
> >
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 09:29, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > I have checked with the 1.1 release and it passes.
> > Looks good to me, but I believe we need to decide about the API stuff before.
> >
> > Not really, what has been said before is that it was ok to release and then remove if and use eclipse one if that's the outcome. This shouldnt be a blocker.
> > 
> >
> > It is definitely not a bind copy of the sources, as I checked it.
> > But the signatures and the packages are obviously the same.
> >
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 22:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 21:36, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Yes, John please also read my review. I've looked at the same classes as well and compared them The only thing which is the same is indeed the signature. So this is fine as it seems to be a rewrite. But of course I'd also remove it in the future to ensure we really use the same API.
> >
> > We will need to discuss it in a dedicated thread cause there are some project and technical concerns dropping it. I will start it tomorrow if nobody beats me at it.
> >
> >
> > Otoh the release process on Eclipse side is rather 'sloppy'. So it's hard to keep the impl up2date without having to compile snapshots of the api locally.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 03.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > The copied code is very localized, from memory I copied the claim enum (mainly to guarantee the ordinal). Except that it is mainly a normal API rewrite. Think a diff should show that it is not just copied. Also the javadoc is 100% from scratch.
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:32, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > It looks like you imported code from Eclipse, but changed the headers to indicate it's licensed to the ASF.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > @John: what's the questionably part?
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le dim. 3 juin 2018 à 17:24, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > -1 since there's questionably licensed files in https://github.com/apache/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/master/geronimo-microprofile-jwt-auth-spec/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile   
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Up + FYI we pass the tck 1.1 so no need to do another vote just to change TCK version since we dont deliver them and are compliant, yeah :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le lun. 21 mai 2018 à 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > Up?
> > >
> > > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I'd like to release geronimo-jwt-auth 1.0.0 as mentionned in another mail
> > >
> > > The dist (dev) area is available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geronimo/jwt-auth/ (rev 26951)
> > > The staging repo is: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1056/
> > > For the duration of this vote I pushed the tag on my fork:  https://github.com/rmannibucau/geronimo-jwt-auth/tree/geronimo-jwt-auth-1.0.0 (will push it on asf once done)
> > > My keys is the same as last time (available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS)
> > >
> > > This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
>