Hi, Jonathan, What bug is it? Last time when I try, it seems work well for me. We can leave a small hole and describe the limitation clearly in release notes/code comments/javadocs, we can also provide a link to the ticket tracking the issue. I remember we did something similar for javacc before. However, I don't think we shall include a JRuby patch in Pig.
Daniel On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Jonathan Coveney <[email protected]> wrote: > First off: JRuby patch is almost done. It's passing tests, I have some more > to add, but I think the definitive version to work off will be out today > (assuming we can reconcile what follows :) > > I hit a bug in JRuby that is pretty impossible to avoid (it's a bug in the > way files were found on the classpath). I figured out the bug and let the > JRuby devs know and they patched master, but that means that our version is > still buggy. I put a patched version of the file in the Pig project pending > a new JRuby release, and this works, but there are two issues: > 1) Is this how we want this to be structued? It's weird to have this random > file in there, but on the other hand, it's a clean and clear fix. > 2) Is this legal? JRuby has a kind of odd triple license and I think you > can choose 1 for pieces that aren't explicitly GPL (of which there are very > few). One of those licenses is the CPL, which Apache says is kosher as long > as you're explicit, but I don't know. Is this fine? Should I talk to JRuby > or Apache legal? > > I suppose the alternative would be to publish a patched version of JRuby > (we could fork it on Github) and depend on that. > > I appreciate your comments > Jon
