Huh. I actually can't find any use of the class in question in our test code - might have been an early attempt at something? Kos/Roman would probably be able to answer.
A. 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. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
