Ha! I knew that would get the ball rolling :) I'll take care of SHIRO-59. Agree with everything Les said - API changes would be important to get in at this stage. I expect working through the release preparation will still take a couple of weeks and we probably have a good chance of closing out all of the remaining ones currently scheduled in that timeframe - but there's no point holding up the release if not.
Kalle On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: > I definitely agree - there are a few critical issues that I'd like to > see if we can resolve: > > - The RememberMeManager acquires the HttpServletRequest/Response pair > from the ThreadLocal - I was thinking that might require an API change > to the RememberMeManager to accept it as a method argument or in the > Subject context map. > - 'Run As' is about 50% done. It shouldn't take much longer to finish > - As Brian suggested, his patches would be a nice edition for the 1.0 release. > > I agree that most of the other issues won't be done for the 1.0 > release, but that's ok - that's what 1.1 will be for or 1.2 or > whatever. It's definitely a good idea to get 1.0 out now to service > the community's needs. > > We're definitely close! > > Cheers, > > Les > > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
