Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DBA44721A for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 74913 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2011 02:15:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 74893 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2011 02:15:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact amber-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 74885 invoked by uid 99); 26 Oct 2011 02:15:40 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:15:40 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lukasz.moren@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.47] (HELO mail-qw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.216.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:15:35 +0000 Received: by qam2 with SMTP id 2so1067964qam.6 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:15:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Gb8EuGz8kk0EzUfv/a2Hv8bLmsHrsICdKXmpcigpJDw=; b=BidhZ8tMxrWOI52dDs7JMY8UfEV76/yKG8NgXfQgW9JMBsTakdtFN1EDxUpwEpoY3N QptJAm+3eXEdcAnnefJHplwOO5BhRbsvKwtZAfGQ4xlB95yDwDxlQaNacHENru3mP/Mt YGayEl3H3jq6ILpIcJJKMPlmSDvS1KS51MWwY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.80.16 with SMTP id r16mr6080155qck.107.1319595314670; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.24.141 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:15:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E270394.5010501@pidster.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:15:14 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Preparing code for the first release From: =?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBNb3JlxYQ=?= To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364ee764fa6ef204b02a395c --0016364ee764fa6ef204b02a395c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, comments inline: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote: > Hi Lukasz, > > just my 2 cents here. > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:42 AM, =C5=81ukasz More=C5=84 wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > We are still waiting for the IP grant from the university, although I a= m > > sure it will be sorted out. > > I know it may be annoying, but we can just keep waiting. > > > > There is growing interest in Amber development so to not block that, > maybe > > we could: > > > > 1. make a new branch from the current trunk (we would have to do that > > anyway) - stable draft-10 implementation. > > Wouldn't be enough doing a tag for it (rather than a branch)? I mean do y= ou > expect that anybody would use version 10 of oauth2.0? > If not, I do not personally see any real benefit from the branch. > We could do tag as well, however IMHO creating branch is not big harm and w= e have opportunity to commit possible bug fixes for draft-10. Many big OAuth 2.0 providers, like Facebook or Google, implements this draf= t and probably it will not change quickly, so would be good to keep Amber draft-10 implementation reliable. > > > 2. continue adding new features to the trunk - there is already few > patches > > waiting for commit on jira. > > > > Please let me know what do you think? > > > > Cheers, > > Lukasz Moren > > Regards > > Antonio > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Pid wrote: > > > >> On 19/07/2011 07:51, Stefan Seelmann wrote: > >>> It would be nice if we could solve the IP clearance of the Leelo code > >>> as soon as possible [1]. We need a signed software grant [2] from > >>> Newcastle University. Then we need to update the license headers in > >>> all source files according to [3], that means the copyright notice > >>> should be moved to the NOTICE file. > >> > >> Lukasz, Maciej this is in your hands I think. Can you keep us posted? > >> > >> I'm happy to do the tidy up & some of the dull stuff thereafter. > >> > >> > >> p > >> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>> Stefan > >>> > >>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/amber-leeloo.html > >>> [2] http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt > >>> [3] http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, =C5=81ukasz More=C5=84 > > >> wrote: > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> I think there are some things that need to be improved before the > >> release. > >>>> Could you please suggest what Amber is currently missing what is > >> required > >>>> for the release or ideally try to fix it :)?. > >>>> With Maciej we will work on OAuth 2.0 module. From what I see should > be > >>>> done: > >>>> > >>>> - unify maven dependencies in oauth 2.0 module by specifying version= s > in > >>>> in the main pom > >>>> - change oauth 2.0 module version form 0.2-SNAPSHOT to 1.0-SNAPSHOT > >> (used by > >>>> the core pom) - is this change safe? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Lukasz Moren > >>>> > >> > >> > > --0016364ee764fa6ef204b02a395c--