Mailing-List: contact bigtop-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bigtop-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: <4E3C5E4A.1020504@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:19:06 -0700
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bruno_Mah=E9?= <bmahe@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:5.0) Gecko/20110707 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bigtop-dev@incubator.apache.org
CC: Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: License problem
References: 
 <CAPbPdOabt45O3T=2XGnpUYAXTu5NJ=6cUQjWeahT4J1TVeBA7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABqR8u-o_mPZWsMJ88M7WhtWzFH7bAzD-cwgFWXcS40hmYHNqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPbPdOb+pZJsNhkfmaXmxFnEswbJaNKVc8zX8NGR50Peu9gNVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPbPdOa9iSwnSd5oMLuMRx29T+ViR+E+_f29pmNW7U8G+ufSCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLc_9Lv-qPYfC_KSxd9DVNDTc_z54ohyqFUfST-mwFr5wBxKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPbPdOYohi9esJrVBzSGj=P4rmUV6-vAbMzJBqBtR6a07ejsJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLc_9Ke7hgKidOcE4nOWVOJ60cp9WwUJ-7=Q6B8=f9+XKFNGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPbPdObpkSptQuxPam_8-gj1NVuCxfq2AdzVUwiNaaSbujfT_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPbPdObpkSptQuxPam_8-gj1NVuCxfq2AdzVUwiNaaSbujfT_A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>