Re: [security-dev] PicketLink restructure

On 04/10/12 23:38, Anil Saldhana wrote: > Shane - I said I need the JPA implementation for J1 and Pedro will > work on it and we will evaluate after J1. > > The only thing that completely took me by surprise was you deleted > the PL IDM repository, rather than waiting for everyone to agree on > the new PL workspace. Typically in these situations, I retain old > code and nuke it once we have agreement. You should have waited > another day for me to get on to chat with you. Internet at J1 sucked. :( > > Ideally I would like us to go over what Pedro has done and evaluate > whether we retain/modify/delete the JPA implementation. It cannot be > the decision of one person in the project. :) I thought we had done that already, but no problem, we can wait until after J1 is finished and discuss it further.

> > Right now, I want to get the PL IDM project back to where it was on > Friday. Then we can talk. > > On Oct 3, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak(a)redhat.com > <mailto:sbryzak@redhat.com>> wrote: > >> Actually, the history is already there for the tagged release - see >> [1] for example. >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/picketlink/picketlink-idm/commits/2.0-20120910/impl/sr... >> >> On 04/10/12 12:24, Shane Bryzak wrote: >>> As I said we have a snapshot of the latest version of the code (see >>> [1]), however this doesn't include the commit history. If the >>> history is important for whatever reason, I suggest we reinstate it >>> under its own branch of the picketlink-idm repository. I thought >>> we were both of the understanding though from our discussions that >>> this code was just a stop-gap measure so that we had something to >>> show in time for JavaOne. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/picketlink/picketlink/tree/953c39f6ccb9c4617357deb4721... >>> >>> >>> >>> On 04/10/12 11:05, Anil Saldhana wrote: >>>> Shane, >>>> did you throw away the JPA code that Pedro had done for almost a >>>> month? Where is that code? >>>> >>>> Code contributions have legal ramifications. We cannot just throw >>>> away code and loss of history is deeply disturbing. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Anil >>>> >>>> On 10/03/2012 05:39 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote: >>>>> There was a little bit of confusion over the legacy IDM code (I >>>>> had forgotten that it had been migrated to the picketlink-idm >>>>> repo on GitHub albeit under different branches) but this has been >>>>> sorted out now, and I believe all the history for it is intact. >>>>> As for the temporary IDM implementation we have the final >>>>> snapshot of it, however since then I've blown it away anyhow and >>>>> started working on the proper implementation. I don't think we >>>>> need the history for the temporary stuff. >>>>> >>>>> Agreed with the collective PL release. As for the version >>>>> number, did we ever do a 2.x release? If so, then I agree we >>>>> should update it to 3.x for the new project. >>>>> >>>>> Shane >>>>> >>>>> On 04/10/12 01:06, Anil Saldhana wrote: >>>>>> Shane, >>>>>> ahh. You could not wait a day or two. :) I am wondering if >>>>>> we could have retained history via some form of "git mv". >>>>>> >>>>>> We should probably have PicketLink version as 3.0 for all the >>>>>> code and rather than do individual releases, we can do a >>>>>> collective PL3.x release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/02/2012 04:56 AM, Boleslaw Dawidowicz wrote: >>>>>>> I restored our branches and synced with Shane on IM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> picketlink-idm/master will be nuked and only contain some >>>>>>> README pointing to new locations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current picketlink-idm repo will be kept for few more months at >>>>>>> least and after we are in more calm situation with GateIn/EPP >>>>>>> it will be renamed into picketlink-idm-legacy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Things under control :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bolek >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Boleslaw Dawidowicz >>>>>>> <bdawidow(a)redhat.com <mailto:bdawidow@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I must say I'm quite pissed off... even yesterday I shared a >>>>>>>> link to one of configuration files in 1.4 branch with a >>>>>>>> consultants. We released twice last month... how could have it >>>>>>>> happened without any question? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Boleslaw Dawidowicz >>>>>>>> <bdawidow(a)redhat.com <mailto:bdawidow@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have you just removed picketlink-idm on github? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are actively working on 1.4 branch and this is critical >>>>>>>>> for EPP. Other branches are still maintenance for older >>>>>>>>> versions of GateIn/EPP. I think I was fairly clear that we >>>>>>>>> need those. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This repo needs to be restored ASAP. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 12:30 AM, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak(a)redhat.com >>>>>>>>> <mailto:sbryzak@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the interests of presenting a clear message to our >>>>>>>>>> developers, one of the steps we'll be taking is to >>>>>>>>>> consolidate the various PicketLink projects into a single >>>>>>>>>> project and presenting this as the "go to" solution for >>>>>>>>>> application security. For now I've merged the CDI and IDM >>>>>>>>>> subprojects (these are now submodules of the PicketLink >>>>>>>>>> project, with "CDI" renamed to "Core") and the plan is to >>>>>>>>>> eventually merge the social and federation modules also. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can find the new GitHub repository here: >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/picketlink (renamed from picketlink-cdi) >>>>>>>>>> and the picketlink-idm repository has now been deleted. For >>>>>>>>>> anyone working on these modules, please use the new >>>>>>>>>> repository from now on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>> Shane >>>>>>