| From: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, hhorak(at)redhat(dot)com, Pavel Kajaba <pkajaba(at)redhat(dot)com>, Andrew Ross <ubuntu(at)rossfamily(dot)co(dot)uk>, doko(at)debian(dot)org, Jesse Jaara <jesse(dot)jaara(at)gmail(dot)com>, ago(at)gentoo(dot)org, Nico Nicolas <nicolas(dot)lecureuil(at)free(dot)fr>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Complicated re-distribution of pgjdbc the "open source way" |
| Date: | 2016-03-08 11:37:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAB=Je-HtjiNJdav-6-MQngYi4V4HfZC=aHNjZPgP9Dd6gKDnjQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Pavel>Not modifiable code is vendor-lock-in
org.osgi.enterprise jar is Apache 2.0-licensed.
Apache 2.0 allows modification of a source code. Surprise.
Pavel>I our case, it is IMO no need to test the potentially opt-outed feature,
You claim to "invent common build denominator feature", then you claim
"there's no need to test it".
Are you kidding?
As per Dave's words: "can you explain why packaging can't be tested"?
"no need" != "can't" as far as I can understand.
I think package testing should be rather simple.
Pavel> It is not needed to check in upstream
Pavel>that the opt-out feature works
You seem to ignore the main aim of testing. The tests are there to
catch unintentional changes.
If no tests added, any innocent refactoring might break your packaging script.
Vladimir
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Raiskup | 2016-03-08 12:08:19 | Re: Complicated re-distribution of pgjdbc the "open source way" |
| Previous Message | Pavel Raiskup | 2016-03-08 11:13:12 | Re: Complicated re-distribution of pgjdbc the "open source way" |