<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">We can have a separate jira space if
you desire.<br>
<br>
Currently we have the master space for PicketLink (PLINK) and one
for federation (PLFED).<br>
<br>
On 08/01/2012 08:33 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9DD2BE069E0A4E8E942A1B88B4E77E85@abstractj.org"
type="cite">
<div> +1 picketlink-cdi would be good. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Are you planning to create a new JIRA space? Or make use of
PicketLink JIRA?</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When can we get started?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>-- </div>
<div>"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato</div>
<div>-</div>
<div>@abstractj</div>
<div>-</div>
<div>Volenti Nihil Difficile</div>
</div>
</div>
<p style="color: #A0A0A8;">On Monday, July 30, 2012 at 7:12 PM,
Shane Bryzak wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<span>
<div>
<div>
<div>Except that we would have to come up with two names,
one for IDM and one </div>
<div>for the CDI module (which has an equivalent amount of
functionality as </div>
<div>IDM - all the ACL and permission management stuff is
there). I </div>
<div>personally am starting to find all these "cool" names
a bit confusing </div>
<div>and would prefer to see the project name just
qualified with "IDM" or </div>
<div>"CDI", however that may just be me getting old.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 31/07/12 02:31, Pete Muir wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Actually, I think it might add less confusion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We already saw Andy M think that "PicketLink" was
in EAP, when in fact PicketLink Federation is in
EAP, and PicketLink IDM isn't.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What about calling it Picket<Something>,
like we have PicketLink, PicketBox?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Makes it clear it's the same family, but doesn't
confuse people.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 30 Jul 2012, at 17:25, Anil Saldhana wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>We have had precedence in naming
releases/projects with developer names.</div>
<div>(an early implementation of JBoss Mail was
called Kabir).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I propose we call it "PicketLink Bolek". :)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 07/30/2012 11:22 AM, Boleslaw Dawidowicz
wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Some amount of coolness always help :) I
would do he rename only if we find something
really fancy though.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Anil
Saldhana <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com">Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>We should just keep it as IDM in PL
github workspace and make it the</div>
<div>trunk. With new names, we will add
more confusion to deciphering</div>
<div>security. ;)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 07/30/2012 05:32 AM, Pete Muir
wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Yes, however I suspect that if we
ask for PicketLink XXX we should get
it through legal, as it "qualifies"
the name.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 30 Jul 2012, at 11:31,
Boleslaw Dawidowicz wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Not a bad idea IMO. Naming
will take a bit of time though
as we first would need to vote
and go via legal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Jul 30, 2012, at 12:23 PM,
Pete Muir <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pmuir@redhat.com">pmuir@redhat.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Or we could give this a
new name entirely, unrelated
to IDM (like Arquillian does
with Drone, Graphene etc.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>e.g. PicketLink Atom</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Or something like that.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This then get's around
the legacy problem, the
version problem etc etc.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 30 Jul 2012, at 09:54,
Shane Bryzak wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>On 30/07/12 17:18,
Boleslaw Dawidowicz
wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Hmm… What is the
benefit over just
starting working on
2.x in current
picketlink-idm
master and leave
previous branches? I
think you still have
two issues:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- A lot of
artefacts released
to maven repo. You
will need to define
different artefact
names to avoid
collisions but then
it will still be
very difficult to
avoid confusion.
People already have
a problem with
understanding that
"PicketLink" is an
umbrella project and
very often refer to
either "PicketLink
Federation" or
"PicketLink IDM" as
just "PicketLink. If
they now find both
"org.picketlink.idm:picketlink-idm-api"
and
"org.picketlink.idm:api:
or
org:picketlink.idm:api
jars with same
version it will
create confusion.
Then if we start
from 2.x version -
I'm not sure what
does it bring to
rename old repo to
legacy in such
scenario. you just
get rid of few old
branches and tags.
Btw. I branched what
need to be branched
so picketlink-idm
master is ready to
be nuked.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I'm happy to do it
that way, my only
concern was that there
will be major API
breakage between the two
versions hence the
separation. If the
current picketlink-idm
is already branched and
there's no problem
nuking master, then we
can place the new
project in the same
repo.</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>- You would need to
do the same with JIRA
or you need to deal
with same problem.
Because PicketLink IDM
was only really
consumed by GateIn
JIRA is a bit left
behind - so quite easy
to cleanup.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Good point, I hadn't
considered JIRA.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Could you write
more how would you
deal with those as
part of repo
renaming?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Btw. I'm still
holding the official
"PicketLink IDM
Component Lead".
Because of my
GateIn/EPP duties I
don't think I will
be able to spent as
much time as Shane
on development -
even though me and
Marek Posolda will
try to help as much
as possible.
Therefore I think it
may be better for
Shane to take over
the official title
as this will be
reflecting current
reality anyway - no
issue on my side :)
I just need to keep
control of existing
1.x branches of
PicketLink IDM as
this is what we
still rely on in
GateIn Portal and
what we ship in EPP.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bolek</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Jul 30, 2012,
at 4:32 AM, Shane
Bryzak <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sbryzak@redhat.com">sbryzak@redhat.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Hey guys,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm just
looking at the
infrastructure
we have for
doing this,
currently in the
PicketLink
github repo [1]
we have
picketlink-idm
and cdi
repositories set
up. I propose
that we rename
picketlink-idm
to
picketlink-idm-legacy
to make way for
the new
picketlink-idm,
and rename cdi
to
picketlink-cdi
(this module
will then
contain all the
CDI and
DeltaSpike
integration for
PicketLink IDM,
plus some
authorization
features such as
ACLs and
permission
management). Are
there any
objections to
this?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Shane</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1] <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://github.com/picketlink">https://github.com/picketlink</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>