Which tests is it still used in? I couldn't find anything referencing it...
A. On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruno Mahé <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >
