Ignore me. ack wasn't looking in groovy files. d'oh! A.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >
