Thanks for upholding the ASF's principles, Jukka. On 8 September 2011 01:31, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The interests Adam alluded to extend beyond just the direct interests of > the > > ASF. Adding any new third party code or package is often a very, very > big > > deal for those of us who depend on ASF components such as PDFBox. > > Note that a testing tool is by definition not included in the jar > artifacts used downstream, so their licensing impact is minimal. The > only problem is if the license of the testing tool would virally > affect the license of the test code within PDFBox, but that won't be > the case at least with the MIT-licensed Mockito. > > > However the disadvantages of including yet-another-package in the > > distribution outweigh the benefits, imho. > > I disagree based on the above point. Better testing tools help improve > quality and their impact on licensing is minimal. > > So, FWIW, +1 to using a mock tool in unit tests. > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting > -- My heroes are the ones who survived doing it wrong, who made mistakes, but recovered from them. - Bono
