incubator-bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Bayer <andrew.ba...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: License problem
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:23:02 GMT
Which tests is it still used in? I couldn't find anything referencing it...

A.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruno Mahé <bmahe@apache.org> wrote:

> It's used to parametrized some of the tests annotations. And it's still
> in use.
> I can take a look at it about how to replace/deal with it sometimes next
> week.
>
> On 08/05/2011 02:07 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
> > Huh. I actually can't find any use of the class in question in our test
> code
> > - might have been an early attempt at something? Kos/Roman would probably
> be
> > able to answer.
> >
> > A.
> >
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message