pig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Dai <da...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Fixing a broken dependency // can we include a patched piece of JRuby source code in Pig?
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:38:30 GMT
Hi, Jonathan,
What bug is it? Last time when I try, it seems work well for me. We
can leave a small hole and describe the limitation clearly in release
notes/code comments/javadocs, we can also provide a link to the ticket
tracking the issue. I remember we did something similar for javacc
before. However, I don't think we shall include a JRuby patch in Pig.


On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Jonathan Coveney <jcoveney@gmail.com> wrote:
> First off: JRuby patch is almost done. It's passing tests, I have some more
> to add, but I think the definitive version to work off will be out today
> (assuming we can reconcile what follows :)
> I hit a bug in JRuby that is pretty impossible to avoid (it's a bug in the
> way files were found on the classpath). I figured out the bug and let the
> JRuby devs know and they patched master, but that means that our version is
> still buggy. I put a patched version of the file in the Pig project pending
> a new JRuby release, and this works, but there are two issues:
> 1) Is this how we want this to be structued? It's weird to have this random
> file in there, but on the other hand, it's a clean and clear fix.
> 2) Is this legal? JRuby has a kind of odd triple license and I think you
> can choose 1 for pieces that aren't explicitly GPL (of which there are very
> few). One of those licenses is the CPL, which Apache says is kosher as long
> as you're explicit, but I don't know. Is this fine? Should I talk to JRuby
> or Apache legal?
> I suppose the alternative would be to publish a patched version of JRuby
> (we could fork it on Github) and depend on that.
> I appreciate your comments
> Jon

View raw message