Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Pig >> mail # dev >> Fixing a broken dependency // can we include a patched piece of JRuby source code in Pig?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Fixing a broken dependency // can we include a patched piece of JRuby source code in Pig?
Won't a lot of people already have their version of JRuby and not want a special one?  I'm fine with having a patched version on github and referring it in our release notes.  I'm not wild about including a version of JRuby with Pig, for both licensing reasons and because our tar file is bloated enough as it is.

Alan.

On Mar 23, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Daniel Dai wrote:

> 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