As open source, IMO it is fine to do something just because you are interested, as long as it works in the interest of the project. I'm not opposed, but there isn't enough information yet.
I would like to see a design document about the differences between JUnit 4 and 5 and how that will affect Beam (examples: @Rule and @Runner changes) and maybe some information about how JUnit 5 is being received by other projects. Generally, mentioned also on the "automatic parameters for IOs" thread, sizable changes with implications for the project should be preceded by design documents to gather feedback from the community. Incidentally, scanning the PR, I see things that looks like they aren't just the JUnit 4 to 5 migration. You should narrow the focus to just the migration. Kenn On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Great, thanks ! > > We will resume our review here once Beam 2.3.0 is out. > > Regards > JB > > On 01/23/2018 10:28 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Oki JB, > > > > Will implement it on my side until beam supports it then. > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> > > > > 2018-01-23 10:24 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > > Hi Romain, > > > > Definitely it's not something targeted for Beam 2.3.0. > > > > It's interesting, but it sounds a bit like a lonesome cowboy effort. > > > > I think it would have been great to discuss a bit in term of > priority (on the > > mailing list) before rushing on the PR. Couple of highlights in the > Jira or PR > > would be appreciated too. > > > > So, please, keep the PR open, I will take a look asap. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 01/23/2018 09:40 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > Anyone able to have a look to the JUnit 5 PR > > > (https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4360 > > <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4360>)? > > > > > > Worse case a "yes we'll move this direction" or "no we don't care > about JUnit 5 > > > for now" feedback would be very valuable for me. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau > > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>> | Blog > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/ <https://rmannibucau.metawerx. > net/>> | > > Old Blog > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com <http://rmannibucau.wordpress. > com>> > > | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau <https://github.com/ > rmannibucau>> | > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>> > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
