On 7/21/10 12:04 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: > 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.
Sounds good. > > 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? I'd mirror the current layout with branches/3.0/ -Donald > > 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 >
