The PR has been merged. Thanks everyone for voting. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > why -> for consistency accross our coupled communities > why does it matter if it is in G for T? -> it doesn't > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > 2018-04-12 15:56 GMT+02:00 Matthew Broadhead <matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co. > uk>: > > we already include libraries from geronimo, e.g. javamail, so why does it > > matter where the library resides as long as it can be included in the > > package > > > > > > On 11/04/2018 15:05, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >> > >> Hi Matthew, > >> > >> No, technicall there are a lot of small things to do before it can be > >> "included" but the main blocker for me is that the exact same project > >> is created at geronimo (actually this code was designed to be owned by > >> geronimo and the artifact imported in tomee). > >> Since G will have it I would like to avoid to have to maintain 2 > >> versions of the "same" code, it already proved being a failure promise > >> multiple times so it is more a management reason than a technical one > >> since the spec is pretty trivial. > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > >> > >> > >> 2018-04-11 14:54 GMT+02:00 Matthew Broadhead > >> <matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>: > >>> > >>> Hi David, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the invitation to vote. I don't want to vote because I am > not > >>> sure I have enough knowledge to be able to do so. > >>> > >>> My gut feeling would probably be to side with Mark and Romain as they > >>> have > >>> been very supportive with my queries about TomEE and they have shown > >>> deep > >>> technical knowledge about the inner workings. > >>> > >>> On the other hand I don't want to dismiss the excellent effort others > are > >>> making on the JWT issue. However as long as the code is reusable and > >>> finds > >>> a home it will not be wasted. > >>> > >>> I am still interested to know what Mark and Romain are looking for > before > >>> they accept it into the project. Does it need to have proven track > >>> record > >>> and reliability? It is a security plugin after all... > >>> > >>> Matthew > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/04/2018 05:23, David Blevins wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Officially closing the vote. Thanks for the patience everyone. As > >>>> mentioned in the other vote, this one needed some good discussion and > a > >>>> bit > >>>> of extra time. > >>>> > >>>> +1s > >>>> Andy Gumbrecht > >>>> David Blevins > >>>> Ivan Junckes Filho > >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >>>> Jonathan Gallimore > >>>> Thiago Veronezi > >>>> > >>>> +0 > >>>> Rudy De Busscher > >>>> > >>>> -1s > >>>> Mark Struberg > >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>>> > >>>> This was intended as a non-technical vote, so I've registered Mark's > -1 > >>>> as > >>>> he intended it. Thanks, Mark, for the clarification. Matthew, you > >>>> didn't > >>>> vote, your participation was quite high -- thank you! You're more > then > >>>> welcome to vote, sir :) > >>>> > >>>> This was a consensus vote to see if there was will keep working on the > >>>> JWT > >>>> code here and see if it could be made reusable. We didn't really need > >>>> this > >>>> vote to accomplish anything other than to see where people's heads are > >>>> at > >>>> and make sure we're communicating with each other clearly. > >>>> > >>>> It does seem over all that the desire is to take a couple more steps. > >>>> This vote did not address where the code should live in its final > state. > >>>> We > >>>> don't really know how reusable anything will be. > >>>> > >>>> I'd probably expect us to take a few more steps, see how things look > and > >>>> come back to the "where" topic. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -David > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 5:02 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> The vote for merging PR 123 does not address community will on what > to > >>>>> do > >>>>> with the code beyond merging it. One can realistically vote +1 to > >>>>> merge the > >>>>> code, but then desire to see the code cleaned up and moved elsewhere. > >>>>> One > >>>>> can realistically desire seeing an attempt to clean up the code to > find > >>>>> what > >>>>> is reusable and may wish to withhold a final decision until we see > how > >>>>> fruitful such a module would be. > >>>>> > >>>>> Out of respect for people who may not know exactly how they feel > (TomEE > >>>>> or Geronimo), this is a vote for the latter. > >>>>> > >>>>> Vote: Should we attempt to extract code from the JWT PR to see what > is > >>>>> reusable and how successful such a jar would be? > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 Let's give it a shot here > >>>>> +-0 > >>>>> -1 Let's do this elsewhere > >>>>> > >>>>> If the vote is +1 to attempt an extraction of reusable code here, > final > >>>>> conclusion of if that extraction is worth it or where it should live > is > >>>>> not > >>>>> being voted on. People are welcome to decide differently based on > the > >>>>> results of the exercise. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -David > >>>>> > > >
