What's the alternative to itest then, for individuals to build the packages themselves and test them out manually?
Patrick On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >
