[security-dev] PicketLink restructure

Thu Oct 4 11:18:20 EDT 2012

On 10/04/2012 09:16 AM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
> 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.
I am sending a separate email on the new workspace proposal. We can 
collect feedback and come to agreement together. :)
>
>>
>> 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 at redhat.com 
>> <mailto:sbryzak at 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/src/main/java/org/jboss/picketlink/idm/internal/jpa
>>>
>>> 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/953c39f6ccb9c4617357deb47210ad15151c2b08/idm-impl/src/main/java/org/picketlink/idm/internal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 at redhat.com <mailto:bdawidow at 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 at redhat.com <mailto:bdawidow at 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 at redhat.com 
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:sbryzak at 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
>>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/security-dev/attachments/20121004/7d55e49a/attachment-0001.html