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