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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Will do. >> >> A. >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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. >>> > >>> >> >> >
