It's used to parametrized some of the tests annotations. And it's still in use. I can take a look at it about how to replace/deal with it sometimes next week.
On 08/05/2011 02:07 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>
