Sounds good, from the MRUnit side, we'll try and get 1.1 out soon after 1.0.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Josh Wills <[email protected]> wrote: > Yep, pretty sure it was me. :) +1 for saying goodbye after the MRUnit > release. > > J > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Matthias Friedrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think the reason why we created crunch-test originally was that > > someone (probably Josh ;-)) needed the TemporaryPath class for some > > other project. We recently managed to get this into MRUnit > > [MRUNIT-162], so this reason no longer exists. Also, JUnit 4.11 > > fixed some Scala-related problem with the @Rule mechanism, so another > > workaround is no longer needed. > > > > I've never been happy with crunch-test - we're not in the business > > of building test frameworks that aren't really related to Crunch > > (remember, crunch depends on crunch-test, not the other way round) > > and its dependencies caused us a lot of licensing trouble with the > > binary distribution. > > > > If we dropped crunch-test after MRUnit 1.1 is released, we could > > get rid of 6 individual licenses (junit, hamcrest-core, mockito-all, > > which includes cglib, asm, and objenesis), 5 of which aren't Apache > > licensed and one even requires a NOTICE entry. I might even throw in a > > test suite refactoring to get rid of our Project Gutenberg, err, > > dependency ;-) > > > > What do you think? > > > > Regards, > > Matthias > > > > [MRUNIT-162] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-162 > > > > -- > Director of Data Science > Cloudera > Twitter: @josh_wills > -- Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/
