[12:45:47 CDT(-0500)] <Ozy_work> this the location of the dev chat?
[12:54:37 CDT(-0500)] <serac> yessir
[12:54:47 CDT(-0500)] <serac> @1400
[12:54:58 CDT(-0500)] <Ozy_work> thanks
[13:03:10 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> checking in
[13:03:43 CDT(-0500)] <serac> howdy
[13:04:07 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I'm about ready to pull the trigger on github migration.
[13:04:44 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Need to rename tags in vM.N.P format, but other than that https://github.com/serac/cas is what it will look like.
[13:04:48 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Please review and comment.
[13:05:35 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Again, master is current 3.4.x_maint branch, and the current cas3/trunk is labeled v4.0 for now.
[13:09:56 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> welcome, jdlich aka Jacob Lichner, a Unicon web developer possessed of some experience using Git.
[13:10:22 CDT(-0500)] <serac> howdy jdlich
[13:10:26 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> I've asked him to please give this another pair of eyes as well.
[13:10:35 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Eyeballs are good.
[13:10:52 CDT(-0500)] <jdlich> hey guys...
[13:11:47 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> while we're working through handing off fuller context: jdlich , https://github.com/serac/cas , known issue with needing to rename some tags for consistency.
[13:14:22 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Anything else to discuss?
[13:15:13 CDT(-0500)] <jdlich> the readme could benefit from markdown syntax, github will pick it up and present things a littler prettier 
[13:15:22 CDT(-0500)] <jdlich> little*
[13:16:10 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I'll look into it. We'd like the readme to be intelligible in a text editor as well.
[13:16:43 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> cool. Polish sounds great. If those are our issues, fantastic.
[13:17:21 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I guess I'm raising the issue that I want to avoid a syntax that helps one use case (presentation on github) versus another (reading in my favorite text editor).
[13:17:25 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Thoughts?
[13:19:34 CDT(-0500)] <jdlich> markdown looks great as simple text
[13:19:44 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Ok, then it's a non-issue.
[13:20:35 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> yeah, markdown is one of those readable source formats.
[13:21:09 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> potentially stupid question: why a v3.1 and a v3.1.x branches?
[13:22:26 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Because those are existing branches.
[13:22:33 CDT(-0500)] <serac> No idea other than that.
[13:22:59 CDT(-0500)] <serac> https://source.jasig.org/cas3/branches/
[13:23:12 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Scott might be able to speak to the difference.
[13:23:38 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Further cleanup of branches and tags may be warranted, but a more or less straight port is a sound first step.
[13:24:30 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> k. I support reasonable compromises that make the migration activity go to completion.
[13:24:56 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> the 4.0 Jasig 2011 conference branch isn't represented, we taking this opportunity to drop that?
[13:25:23 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I plan to possibly consider it further in my own public fork on github.
[13:25:38 CDT(-0500)] <serac> But no plans to copy it over to jasig cas repo.
[13:25:53 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> the off-of-3.4.10-lppe feature branch isn't represented, is there a path to continue to afford shared source control for that collaboration?
[13:26:19 CDT(-0500)] <serac> It's not there because I did the import from svn prior to its existence.
[13:26:40 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I'd recommend we do not bring it over since git affords a sound way for private experimentation in public via github.
[13:27:04 CDT(-0500)] <serac> This is more-or-less Bill's work in public.
[13:27:12 CDT(-0500)] <Ozy_work> I get the feeling that that is not experimentation – but I am not used to git, so it might still be classified that way
[13:27:51 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> so the model for collab is that it would be a public project within, say, wgthom's account, and others can collaborate upon it by clone, enhance, and push?
[13:28:09 CDT(-0500)] <Ozy_work> that may be – but it's not as if he is experimenting to see if something can be done, he is doing it.
[13:28:17 CDT(-0500)] <serac> There is nothing except proposals, of which mine is one.
[13:28:28 CDT(-0500)] <serac> There is no try only do or do not.
[13:28:45 CDT(-0500)] <Ozy_work> ok, I got the feeling there was more to it than that over the emails discussing lppe
[13:28:49 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I would recommend not creating branches except for maintenance.
[13:28:57 CDT(-0500)] <Ozy_work> i can supprot that
[13:29:05 CDT(-0500)] <Ozy_work> as if my support means anything 
[13:29:27 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I'm all for requesting to create an "official" branch by request and subsequent vote.
[13:29:40 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> sorry if I should already recall offhand, but, whois Ozy_work ?
[13:29:42 CDT(-0500)] <serac> But I think we want to avoid a proliferation of branches within the official repo.
[13:29:59 CDT(-0500)] <Ozy_work> apetro: Jeff Chapin. Lurk on the lists, ocasionally comment.
[13:30:16 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Thanks for clarification. Good to know who's behind the nick.
[13:30:17 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> fantastic. Glad you're here, Jeff.
[13:30:28 CDT(-0500)] <serac> Anyway, these are all just ideas.
[13:30:33 CDT(-0500)] <Ozy_work> glad I had time to join
[13:31:16 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I think the important thing is that we have a model for collaboration that doesn't create chaos or confusion in the project proper.
[13:33:00 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I should add that the collaboration needs to be easy/low barrier to entry.
[13:38:48 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> collaboration and clarity. Both good values.
[13:39:22 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> pretty sure I'm not going to really understand collaborating using Git until I'm doing it, but to the extent I can evaluate it, this looks good.
[13:39:59 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I honestly think Git considerably expands our options, so hopefully there's a solution that's agreeable to all the devs.
[13:46:59 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> ok.
[13:47:13 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> running out of time for this slot, other items to discuss besides githubness?
[13:47:41 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> looks like wgthom has made fine progress improving the contributed LPPE module in that feature branch, and has left things with a status update while he heads out again on travel.
[13:48:23 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> I haven't done much with the docbook since posting the snapshot artifacts generated from it, but intend to continue to plug away merging.
[13:48:29 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I've yet to review his latest work and try to reconcile it with CAS4 approach.
[13:48:43 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I hope to find some time to do that this weekend.
[13:48:48 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> and no jdlich I have no plans to switch horses to Markdown
[13:48:56 CDT(-0500)] <serac> haha
[13:50:02 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> yeah. squinting enough, it seemed to me that the approaches were very similar, that there's a difference in what to name the thing that translates exceptions, essentially.
[13:50:51 CDT(-0500)] <serac> I believe that's right.
[13:50:52 CDT(-0500)] <jdlich> markdown will find you out sooner or later ;P
[13:51:13 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> I still like that /cas3Validate practical endpoint idea, so I'll have to circle back and gather up a clearer proposal for that.
[13:52:47 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> oh, and uPortal 4 shipped, I believe
[13:53:02 CDT(-0500)] <serac> You should address my points in your response. While I sincerely think we should spend energy on existing standards, I had some sincere questions in there.
[13:53:17 CDT(-0500)] <serac> esp w/r/t removing proxy callback
[13:53:24 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> which is actually a win for CAS, in that it ships demonstrating CAS and proxy tickets (and ClearPass)
[13:54:16 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> I'll continue to assume all your questions are sincere, serac.
[13:56:10 CDT(-0500)] <apetro> and yes,the points you raise deserve discussion
General
Content
Integrations