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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks! > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]> > >>> 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 < > [email protected]> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > >
