incubator-bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: License problem
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:24:18 GMT
BigTop packages have been successfully built on ubuntu maverick, centos
5.5 and openSUSE 11.4.
But the iTest side hasn't been tested at all in a bigtop context and I
don't think it would work as is.

Does that mean we need to do the following for the first release?
* Maintain the success of the builds on ubuntu maverick, centos 5.5 and
openSUSE 11.4
* Clean up iTest to make it work
* Work through the legal matters

On 08/05/2011 02:07 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> What's the alternative to itest then, for individuals to build the
> packages themselves and test them out manually?
>
> Patrick
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
>>> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
>>> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
>>> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
>>> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
>>> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
>> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
>> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
>> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
>>>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
>>>>
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for
>>>> now.
>>>>> It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
>>>>> dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
>>>>> compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority
for
>>>> the
>>>>> next release.
>>>>>
>>>>> A.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Will do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <tom.e.white@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>>>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> So one of the iTest files (
>>>>>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>> is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with
the CPL.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> the CPL is a Category B license on
>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>>>>>>>> which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include
it,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need
to rewrite
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>


Mime
View raw message