On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> 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 <[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. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
