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. On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> 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 <[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. > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
