License problem

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

So one of the iTest files (
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java)
is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL. But
the CPL is a Category B license on http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it, and if
possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite the
class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?

A.

Re: License problem

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

Ignore me. ack wasn't looking in groovy files. d'oh!

A.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which tests is it still used in? I couldn't find anything referencing it...
>
> A.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> It's used to parametrized some of the tests annotations. And it's still
>> in use.
>> I can take a look at it about how to replace/deal with it sometimes next
>> week.
>>
>> On 08/05/2011 02:07 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
>> > Huh. I actually can't find any use of the class in question in our test
>> code
>> > - might have been an early attempt at something? Kos/Roman would
>> probably be
>> > able to answer.
>> >
>> > A.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal
>> issues
>> >>> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have
>> anything
>> >>> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away
>> regardless,
>> >>> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins
>> (or
>> >>> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about
>> cleanup,
>> >>> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
>> >> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
>> >> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
>> >> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
>> >>
>> >> Patrick
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
>> >>>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly
>> implies:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
>> >>>> Patrick
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <
>> andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class
>> for
>> >>>> now.
>> >>>>> It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a
>> binary
>> >>>>> dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
>> >>>>> compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority
>> >> for
>> >>>> the
>> >>>>> next release.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <
>> andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Will do.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> A.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>> >>>>>>> (
>> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>> >>>>>>> Tom
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <
>> >> andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> So one of the iTest files (
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>> >>>>>>> )
>> >>>>>>>> is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the
>> >> CPL.
>> >>>>>>> But
>> >>>>>>>> the CPL is a Category B license on
>> >>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>> >>>>>>>> which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include
>> it,
>> >>>> and
>> >>>>>>> if
>> >>>>>>>> possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to
>> >> rewrite
>> >>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> A.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: License problem

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

Which tests is it still used in? I couldn't find anything referencing it...

A.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org> wrote:

> It's used to parametrized some of the tests annotations. And it's still
> in use.
> I can take a look at it about how to replace/deal with it sometimes next
> week.
>
> On 08/05/2011 02:07 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
> > Huh. I actually can't find any use of the class in question in our test
> code
> > - might have been an early attempt at something? Kos/Roman would probably
> be
> > able to answer.
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal
> issues
> >>> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have
> anything
> >>> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away
> regardless,
> >>> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins
> (or
> >>> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about
> cleanup,
> >>> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
> >> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
> >> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
> >> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
> >>>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
> >>>> Patrick
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class
> for
> >>>> now.
> >>>>> It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
> >>>>> dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
> >>>>> compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority
> >> for
> >>>> the
> >>>>> next release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <
> andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Will do.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
> >>>>>>> (
> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
> >>>>>>> Tom
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> >> andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> So one of the iTest files (
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
> >>>>>>> )
> >>>>>>>> is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the
> >> CPL.
> >>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>> the CPL is a Category B license on
> >>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
> >>>>>>>> which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it,
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>> possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to
> >> rewrite
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
>
>

Re: License problem

[Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org>]

It's used to parametrized some of the tests annotations. And it's still
in use.
I can take a look at it about how to replace/deal with it sometimes next
week.

On 08/05/2011 02:07 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
> Huh. I actually can't find any use of the class in question in our test code
> - might have been an early attempt at something? Kos/Roman would probably be
> able to answer.
>
> A.
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
>>> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
>>> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
>>> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
>>> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
>>> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
>> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
>> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
>> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
>>>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for
>>>> now.
>>>>> It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
>>>>> dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
>>>>> compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority
>> for
>>>> the
>>>>> next release.
>>>>>
>>>>> A.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Will do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>>>>>>> (
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <
>> andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> So one of the iTest files (
>>>>>>>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>> is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the
>> CPL.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> the CPL is a Category B license on
>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>>>>>>>> which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to
>> rewrite
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Re: License problem

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

Huh. I actually can't find any use of the class in question in our test code
- might have been an early attempt at something? Kos/Roman would probably be
able to answer.

A.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
> > sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
> > functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
> > since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
> > elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
> > legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
>
> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
> >> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
> >>
> >> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
> >>
> >>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for
> >> now.
> >> > It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
> >> > dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
> >> > compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority
> for
> >> the
> >> > next release.
> >> >
> >> > A.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Will do.
> >> >>
> >> >> A.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
> >> >>> (
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Tom
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> > So one of the iTest files (
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
> >> >>> )
> >> >>> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the
> CPL.
> >> >>> But
> >> >>> > the CPL is a Category B license on
> >> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
> >> >>> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it,
> >> and
> >> >>> if
> >> >>> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to
> rewrite
> >> the
> >> >>> > class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > A.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: License problem

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

Worst-case, I could release that one class file wearing my Cloudera hat, but
I think the best case is to find a way to rewrite it. Roman's back next
week, and he and Cos wrote it originally, so hopefully he can provide some
help on this.

A.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > BigTop packages have been successfully built on ubuntu maverick, centos
> > 5.5 and openSUSE 11.4.
> > But the iTest side hasn't been tested at all in a bigtop context and I
> > don't think it would work as is.
> >
> > Does that mean we need to do the following for the first release?
> > * Maintain the success of the builds on ubuntu maverick, centos 5.5 and
> > openSUSE 11.4
>
> That would be a useful thing to document as part of the release
> documentation.
>
> > * Clean up iTest to make it work
> > * Work through the legal matters
>
> Definitely remove the code that's not properly licensed. If itest
> could be made to work great, but otw have some detail in the README on
> expectations - ie how to build and test, even if that means having to
> install/verify manually for the first version.
>
> Patrick
>
> >
> > On 08/05/2011 02:07 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> >> What's the alternative to itest then, for individuals to build the
> >> packages themselves and test them out manually?
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal
> issues
> >>>> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have
> anything
> >>>> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away
> regardless,
> >>>> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins
> (or
> >>>> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about
> cleanup,
> >>>> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
> >>> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
> >>> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
> >>> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
> >>>
> >>> Patrick
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
> >>>>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly
> implies:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Patrick
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <
> andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class
> for
> >>>>> now.
> >>>>>> It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a
> binary
> >>>>>> dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
> >>>>>> compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority
> for
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> next release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <
> andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Will do.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
> >>>>>>>> (
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tom
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> So one of the iTest files (
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
> >>>>>>>> )
> >>>>>>>>> is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the
> CPL.
> >>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>> the CPL is a Category B license on
> >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
> >>>>>>>>> which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include
> it,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>> possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to
> rewrite
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >
> >
>

Re: License problem

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org> wrote:
> BigTop packages have been successfully built on ubuntu maverick, centos
> 5.5 and openSUSE 11.4.
> But the iTest side hasn't been tested at all in a bigtop context and I
> don't think it would work as is.
>
> Does that mean we need to do the following for the first release?
> * Maintain the success of the builds on ubuntu maverick, centos 5.5 and
> openSUSE 11.4

That would be a useful thing to document as part of the release documentation.

> * Clean up iTest to make it work
> * Work through the legal matters

Definitely remove the code that's not properly licensed. If itest
could be made to work great, but otw have some detail in the README on
expectations - ie how to build and test, even if that means having to
install/verify manually for the first version.

Patrick

>
> On 08/05/2011 02:07 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>> What's the alternative to itest then, for individuals to build the
>> packages themselves and test them out manually?
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
>>>> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
>>>> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
>>>> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
>>>> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
>>>> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
>>> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
>>> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
>>> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
>>>>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for
>>>>> now.
>>>>>> It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
>>>>>> dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
>>>>>> compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority for
>>>>> the
>>>>>> next release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>>>>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So one of the iTest files (
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>> is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> the CPL is a Category B license on
>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>>>>>>>>> which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
>

Re: License problem

[Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org>]

BigTop packages have been successfully built on ubuntu maverick, centos
5.5 and openSUSE 11.4.
But the iTest side hasn't been tested at all in a bigtop context and I
don't think it would work as is.

Does that mean we need to do the following for the first release?
* Maintain the success of the builds on ubuntu maverick, centos 5.5 and
openSUSE 11.4
* Clean up iTest to make it work
* Work through the legal matters

On 08/05/2011 02:07 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> What's the alternative to itest then, for individuals to build the
> packages themselves and test them out manually?
>
> Patrick
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
>>> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
>>> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
>>> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
>>> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
>>> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
>> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
>> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
>> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
>>>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
>>>>
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for
>>>> now.
>>>>> It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
>>>>> dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
>>>>> compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority for
>>>> the
>>>>> next release.
>>>>>
>>>>> A.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Will do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>>>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> So one of the iTest files (
>>>>>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>> is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> the CPL is a Category B license on
>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>>>>>>>> which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Re: License problem

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

What's the alternative to itest then, for individuals to build the
packages themselves and test them out manually?

Patrick

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
>> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
>> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
>> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
>> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
>> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
>
> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
>>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
>>>
>>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for
>>> now.
>>> > It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
>>> > dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
>>> > compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority for
>>> the
>>> > next release.
>>> >
>>> > A.
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Will do.
>>> >>
>>> >> A.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>>> >>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Tom
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> > So one of the iTest files (
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>>> >>> )
>>> >>> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL.
>>> >>> But
>>> >>> > the CPL is a Category B license on
>>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>>> >>> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it,
>>> and
>>> >>> if
>>> >>> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite
>>> the
>>> >>> > class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > A.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>

Re: License problem

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.

A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
first release, but not really _the_ goal.

Patrick


> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
>>
>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for
>> now.
>> > It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
>> > dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
>> > compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority for
>> the
>> > next release.
>> >
>> > A.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Will do.
>> >>
>> >> A.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>> >>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>> >>>
>> >>> Tom
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > So one of the iTest files (
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>> >>> )
>> >>> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL.
>> >>> But
>> >>> > the CPL is a Category B license on
>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>> >>> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it,
>> and
>> >>> if
>> >>> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite
>> the
>> >>> > class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > A.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Re: License problem

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.

A.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:

> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
>
> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
>
> Patrick
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for
> now.
> > It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
> > dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
> > compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority for
> the
> > next release.
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Will do.
> >>
> >> A.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
> >>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > So one of the iTest files (
> >>> >
> >>>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
> >>> )
> >>> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL.
> >>> But
> >>> > the CPL is a Category B license on
> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
> >>> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it,
> and
> >>> if
> >>> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite
> the
> >>> > class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
> >>> >
> >>> > A.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Re: License problem

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.

I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate

Patrick

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for now.
> It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
> dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
> compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority for the
> next release.
>
> A.
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Will do.
>>
>> A.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > So one of the iTest files (
>>> >
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>>> )
>>> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL.
>>> But
>>> > the CPL is a Category B license on
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>>> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it, and
>>> if
>>> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite the
>>> > class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > A.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: License problem

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for now.
It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority for the
next release.

A.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Will do.
>
> A.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > So one of the iTest files (
>> >
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>> )
>> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL.
>> But
>> > the CPL is a Category B license on
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it, and
>> if
>> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite the
>> > class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>> >
>> > A.
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: License problem

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

Will do.

A.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <to...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>
> Tom
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > So one of the iTest files (
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
> )
> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL. But
> > the CPL is a Category B license on
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it, and if
> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite the
> > class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
> >
> > A.
> >
>

Re: License problem

[Tom White <to...@gmail.com>]

This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
(http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).

Tom

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So one of the iTest files (
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java)
> is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL. But
> the CPL is a Category B license on http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
> which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it, and if
> possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite the
> class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>
> A.
>