1:21 p.m.
Hi all,
I'd like to set up regular calls for folks to discuss open pull
requests. I'm thinking an hour every other week, with a maximum of 30
minutes on any single pull request. There will have to be a certain
amount of scheduling magic to make sure the submitter is on the call to
discuss, but that'll be my problem to coordinate.
Any objections? Or would folks prefer this to be weekly, at least until
we get through the existing backlog of requests?
-Heather
2:06 p.m.
On 8 Feb 2018, at 13:21, Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to set up regular calls for folks to discuss open pull
requests. I'm thinking an hour every other week, with a maximum of 30
minutes on any single pull request. There will have to be a certain
amount of scheduling magic to make sure the submitter is on the call to
discuss, but that'll be my problem to coordinate.
Any objections? Or would folks prefer this to be weekly, at least until
we get through the existing backlog of requests?
I think that would be a good idea.
— Roland
11:07 a.m.
On 8 February 2018 at 15:06, Roland Hedberg <roland at catalogix.se> wrote:
+1 I also agree that is a good idea.
If we have a stable call for idpy then we could devote a small part of
it, like 5 or 10 minutes to propose which PR(s) should be discussed
and have priority list. Any PR needs some time to be checked and
understood and that is difficult to do on a call. So, having a list of
PRs sorted by priority will help us do some work before the
discussion.
I think we should try it and see how it goes.
--
Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 13:21, Heather Flanagan <hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to set up regular calls for folks to discuss open pull
> requests. I'm thinking an hour every other week, with a maximum of 30
Just a note, the PRs are not only pending on SATOSA but other projects too.
minutes on any
single pull request. There will have to be a certain
amount of scheduling magic to make sure the submitter is on the call to
discuss, but that'll be my problem to coordinate.
Any objections? Or would folks prefer this to be weekly, at least until
we get through the existing backlog of requests?
I think that would be a good idea.
8:51 p.m.
On 2/9/18 2:07 AM, Ivan Kanakarakis wrote:
+1 I also agree that is a good idea.
If we have a stable call for idpy then we could devote a small part of
it, like 5 or 10 minutes to propose which PR(s) should be discussed
and have priority list. Any PR needs some time to be checked and
understood and that is difficult to do on a call. So, having a list of
PRs sorted by priority will help us do some work before the
discussion.
I think we should try it and see how it goes.
Do you think you can send me a list of how you see the priority for
Satosa requests? I'll talk with Leif about pyff.
-Heather
On 8 February 2018 at 15:06, Roland Hedberg <roland
at catalogix.se> wrote:
Yes. I expect we'll deal with Satosa and pyff; we'll need a longer
conversation about how to handle pySAML requests.
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 13:21, Heather Flanagan <hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to set up regular calls for folks to discuss open pull
> requests. I'm thinking an hour every other week, with a maximum of 30
Just
a note, the PRs are not only pending on SATOSA but other projects too. minutes
on any single pull request. There will have to be a certain
amount of scheduling magic to make sure the submitter is on the call to
discuss, but that'll be my problem to coordinate.
Any objections? Or would folks prefer this to be weekly, at least until
we get through the existing backlog of requests?
I think that would be a good
idea.
3:06 p.m.
Hey all,
On 12 February 2018 at 21:51, Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com> wrote:
+1 I also agree that is a good idea.
If we have a stable call for idpy then we could devote a small part of
it, like 5 or 10 minutes to propose which PR(s) should be discussed
and have priority list. Any PR needs some time to be checked and
understood and that is difficult to do on a call. So, having a list of
PRs sorted by priority will help us do some work before the
discussion.
I think we should try it and see how it goes.
Do you think you can send me a list of how you see the priority for
Satosa requests? I'll talk with Leif about pyff.
SATOSA
------------
For satosa I would say that:
#176 will be reviewed and merged once I have time - we can do this online
#172 is adding a new feature using a flag - it is standalone and could
be merged.
I have not gone into it much, but it is an interesting case to start
with a proposal I wanted to make:
«each pull request should describe a problem and a solution on a non
technical level»
So, each PR's description could be rewritten as:
"""
- Problem
We want to achieve this and that. This is needed because this and that.
- Solution
By adding/modifying this and that we can do this and that
"""
This should also be reflected on the commits.
Unfortunately this is on Scott again, and I don't want him to feel bad
by me giving him more work to do.
#171 is big, needs homework before we get into it
#166 needs some investigation
#160 will be dropped - part of it is things that user is doing for
their own needs, part of it is already there, and part of it overlaps
with #137
#137 needs to be refactored - part of it is already there, part of it
is useful, part of it belongs to pysaml2
So, #176 and #172 should be done first, then #137, then #166 or #171.
Then, at some point, we need to look into the new OpenID-Connect tools
that Roland has pushed.
--
Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3
On 2/9/18 2:07 AM, Ivan Kanakarakis wrote:
I would also include the following pysaml2 PRs:
pySaml2
------------
#483 Enable signature verification for MDQ
#485 Add want_assertions_or_response_signed functionality
On 8 February 2018 at 15:06, Roland Hedberg
<roland at catalogix.se> wrote:
Yes. I expect we'll deal with Satosa and pyff; we'll need a longer
conversation about how to handle pySAML requests.
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 13:21, Heather Flanagan <hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to set up regular calls for folks to discuss open pull
> requests. I'm thinking an hour every other week, with a maximum of 30
Just
a note, the PRs are not only pending on SATOSA but other projects too. minutes
on any single pull request. There will have to be a certain
amount of scheduling magic to make sure the submitter is on the call to
discuss, but that'll be my problem to coordinate.
Any objections? Or would folks prefer this to be weekly, at least until
we get through the existing backlog of requests?
I think that would be a good
idea.
2:49 p.m.
Hi,
I would also include the following pysaml2 PRs:
pySaml2
------------
#483 Enable signature verification for MDQ
#485 Add want_assertions_or_response_signed functionality
Those are both mine.
I am in the process of writing tests for #485.
#172 is adding a new feature using a flag - it is
standalone and could
be merged.
I have not gone into it much, but it is an interesting case to start
with a proposal I wanted to make:
«each pull request should describe a problem and a solution on a non
technical level»
So, each PR's description could be rewritten as:
"""
- Problem
We want to achieve this and that. This is needed because this and that.
- Solution
By adding/modifying this and that we can do this and that
"""
This should also be reflected on the commits.
Unfortunately this is on Scott again, and I don't want him to feel bad
by me giving him more work to do.
I won't feel bad, but I have a requirement first. :-)
My requirement is that your requirement on the pull request format be
documented somewhere. I suggest either the GitHub wiki for the project
or under the IdPy web space.
Once it is documented please point me to it and I will follow it for
that PR. It will allow us to test the documentation of your proposal.
Cheers,
Scott
3:01 p.m.
On 2/15/18 5:49 AM, Scott Koranda wrote:
My requirement is that your requirement on the pull
request format be
documented somewhere. I suggest either the GitHub wiki for the project
or under the IdPy web space.
Once it is documented please point me to it and I will follow it for
that PR. It will allow us to test the documentation of your proposal.
+1 to putting this on the GitHub wiki.
-Heather
2:17 a.m.
Even better that documentation would be a PR template:
https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates
- Rainer
Am 2018-02-15 um 15:01 schrieb Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com>:
On 2/15/18 5:49 AM, Scott Koranda wrote:
My requirement is that your requirement on the
pull request format be
documented somewhere. I suggest either the GitHub wiki for the project
or under the IdPy web space.
Once it is documented please point me to it and I will follow it for
that PR. It will allow us to test the documentation of your proposal.
+1 to putting this on the GitHub wiki.
-Heather
_______________________________________________
Idpy-discuss mailing list
Idpy-discuss at lists.sunet.se
https://lists.sunet.se/listinfo/idpy-discuss
3:12 p.m.
On 2/14/18 5:17 PM, Rainer Hoerbe wrote:
Even better that documentation would be a PR
template:
https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates
- Rainer
oooh, shiny!
-hf
> Am 2018-02-15 um 15:01 schrieb Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com>:
>
> On 2/15/18 5:49 AM, Scott Koranda wrote:
>> My requirement is that your requirement on the pull request format be
>> documented somewhere. I suggest either the GitHub wiki for the project
>> or under the IdPy web space.
>>
>> Once it is documented please point me to it and I will follow it for
>> that PR. It will allow us to test the documentation of your proposal.
>
> +1 to putting this on the GitHub wiki.
>
>
> -Heather
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idpy-discuss mailing list
> Idpy-discuss at lists.sunet.se
> https://lists.sunet.se/listinfo/idpy-discuss
3:15 p.m.
Even better that documentation would be a PR
template:
https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates
+1
I am happy to be the tester for a template...
Cheers,
Scott
3:48 p.m.
We’ve used this in pyoidc for some time now.
Works pretty well.
On 15 Feb 2018, at 15:15, Scott Koranda <skoranda
at gmail.com> wrote:
Even better that documentation would be a PR
template:
https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates
+1
I am happy to be the tester for a template...
Cheers,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Idpy-discuss mailing list
Idpy-discuss at lists.sunet.se
https://lists.sunet.se/listinfo/idpy-discuss
11:08 a.m.
+1
Am 2018-02-08 um 14:06 schrieb Roland Hedberg
<roland at catalogix.se>:
On 8 Feb 2018, at 13:21, Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to set up regular calls for folks to discuss open pull
requests. I'm thinking an hour every other week, with a maximum of 30
minutes on any single pull request. There will have to be a certain
amount of scheduling magic to make sure the submitter is on the call to
discuss, but that'll be my problem to coordinate.
Any objections? Or would folks prefer this to be weekly, at least until
we get through the existing backlog of requests?
I think that would be a good idea.
— Roland
_______________________________________________
Idpy-discuss mailing list
Idpy-discuss at lists.sunet.se
https://lists.sunet.se/listinfo/idpy-discuss
2510
days inactive
2517
days old
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com -
ivan.kanak＠gmail.com -
rainer＠hoerbe.at -
roland＠catalogix.se -
skoranda＠gmail.com