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 Mon, 08 Aug 2011 23:07:51 GMT
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Bruno Mahé <bmahe@apache.org> wrote:
> 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

That would be a useful thing to document as part of the release documentation.

> * Clean up iTest to make it work
> * Work through the legal matters

Definitely remove the code that's not properly licensed. If itest
could be made to work great, but otw have some detail in the README on
expectations - ie how to build and test, even if that means having to
install/verify manually for the first version.

Patrick

>
> 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