db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: JUnit license, was: subversion etiquette]
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:01:35 GMT
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>Thanks Jean, David, and Francois for your suggestion that I amend
>>BUILDING.txt. Now I'm back to an etiquette question: I'm hoping to check
>>in a JUnit assertion-based test. Since the test needs JUnit to build, my
>>patch will break everyone's build: they will have to download the junit
>>jar themselves. This could annoy a lot of folks. What is the etiquette
>>for breaking the build this way?

Some comparisions ...

Though it doesn't affect the build, derbyall runs tests using IBM's
Univeral JDBC driver if it is in the classpath. If it isn't then the
tests are not run. Thus the download of the driver is optional (as it is
not open source software).

And for the build the OSGi jar file is optional, some folks may not be
happy about having to to register to download it. The class that depends
on it is simply not built if the jar is not there, ensuring the build
does not break or give an error message.

Now for an open source jar, such as Junit, I believe requiring its
download is ok for Derby, as long as the licence is generally
acceptable. Downloading a jar under an open source licence that had a
term than you must give all your money to me, would be acceptable to me,
but probably not to any one else! :-)


View raw message