I suspect some of this is aimed at me. I'd be fine to send PRs and earn committer status through meritocracy. To be clear, I'm not blocking this being merged in TomEE or Geronimo. Your -1 vetoes it being merged into TomEE.
I appreciate your reply to my question about the changes you'd like to the JWT work. They sound like good suggestions, and as long as there is open discussion and collaboration on the appropriate list, I'm ok with it. I don't think they should block a merge as work can continue after the merge. Your comment "As soon as you imported the lib in G, I will make sure to help to make it releasable.", coupled with me asking twice what that meant, sounded like it was going to be immediately changed and released potentially without much discussion as soon as it lands in Geronimo. I'm not committer on Geronimo - if I implemented part of MP and it winds up there, my hope is that the Geronimo community would help and enable me to contribute further and ultimately become a committee, just as OpenEJB did 10 years ago. So just to be clear, I'm not blocking / vetoing anything, and I encourage this to be merged somewhere and open collaboration to continue wherever it ends up. Jon On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, 21:49 Romain Manni-Bucau, <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Globally that is it. You explained a lot why geronimo failed and not sure > why tomee is kind of taking the same path - well actually cause of "perms > lack" fear from what I read. This is not a safe reason (+not that relevant > @asf thanks to the meritocracy) and Id prefer to keep "us" being unite as > we have been 7 years ago instead of just going on different paths cause of > a fears. > > > > Le 29 mars 2018 21:57, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On Mar 29, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Le 29 mars 2018 20:49, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > > >> On Mar 28, 2018, at 8:53 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 6:29 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >>> Is your -1 on the basis that the code must be moved to Geronimo? > >> > >> That + the fact tomee is not and shouldnt become a put it all project > just > >> become of scm perms IMO but stay an integration project to keep sense > and > >> not mess up its own image and mess up the quality of our reusable libs. > > > > > Do you see this as a one-time situation or do you intend to vote the > same > > > way on any future MicroProfile implementation work in TomEE? > > > > > > For example, should work be started to implement MicroProfile > OpenTracing > > > in TomEE, would that PR be -1 on the basis the implementation should be > in > > > Geronimo? > > > > Being said it will be in G anyway since that is half of G definition > since > > some months now (since server has been dropped), I ll do my best to keep > it > > consistent in our small ecosystem and do the same to have strong reusable > > libs since there is no technical blockers @MP to have it and a strong > > integration solution (tomee) and not a mess with an in between state. > > I'm reading that as a yes that you would -1 future MP implementation work > in TomEE on the basis it should live in Geronimo, but you hope it doesn't > come to that and will do your best to create good implementations in > Geronimo so it isn't necessary. > > If I misunderstood, please clarify. > > > -David > >
