Ok, it sounds like more people prefer to move these tcks into a public svn location.
So I guess we should create a https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tck repo and move the tcks over. There should be no problem with moving the following modules (since it's all Apache licensed stuff): 1) jboss-test-harness-geronimo - integration code between jboss test harness & geronimo which is used by #2 and #3 2) jcdi-testsuite - jcdi tck runner 3) validator-testsuite - bean validation tck runner But I also would like to move the following two modules: 4) jaxb-testsuite - jaxb tck runner 5) stax-testsuite - stax tck runner #4 and #5 are basically just pom files that download the right Geronimo dependencies and unix shell scripts that run the given tck in batch mode. The actual tck must be downloaded/setup separately. They do however contain a JavaTest configuration file that configures the tck. So I'm not 100% sure if these modules can be moved because of that config file. Also, should these modules move to https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tck/trunk or to https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tck/branches/3.0 to mimic the setup we have in geronimo-tck repo? If there are no major objections to this plan I'll start working on it tomorrow. Jarek On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:05 AM, David Jencks wrote: > >> >> On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote: >> >>> My main concern is that if we move the JCDI and Bean Validation >>> porting code to public svn location then we will effectively have two >>> mailing lists for discussing tck issues, two jira places for filing >>> and tracking tck challenges, possibly two wiki places for tck info, >>> etc. And we will have to be extra careful to discuss a given tck >>> problem on the right list... and sooner or later somebody will use the >>> wrong list. >>> Yes, it would be nice to have this stuff in open but I'm just >>> wondering how much headache it will be to keep track of it all and >>> maintain it. >> >> I think its going to be significantly harder to maintain out in the open and >> there is much more likelyhood of slips in talking about NDA stuff on public >> lists, but I don't think we have any good argument for keeping the harnesses >> for these tcks in the private svn. IMO ideally all the tcks would be public >> so I feel a bit morally obligated to put anything that can be public, in >> public. > > Good discussion. My preference would be to err on the side of openness. So, > would prefer to see the harnesses in public svn and documentation on public > Wiki. I think we can maintain any actual TCK challenges using TCK Jira and > TCK mailing list (i.e. use the existing mechanisms for ASF communications > with Oracle). Would assume that most challenges would have been preceded by a > public discussion... > > If we mess up and accidentally reveal some private TCK information, then so > be it. Accidents have (and will) happen. In my experience, you can find a lot > more TCK private information on Sun/Oracle's bug reports then we've ever > revealed. Not saying we should ignore the issue. Just saying we shouldn't > lose much sleep over it, either... > > -- kevan
