incubator-bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: License problem
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:07:33 GMT
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