Hi Brian If the code was not functional, I would agree. But the code is fully functional and we are planning to remove it because of a controversial potential legal issue that, even with the more restricted view on that, only affects a dependency and its associated test. That's why my PR is removing the driver and disable the test that fails when the driver is removed, but the code, which is essentially using jdbc, not specific oracle stuff, is still being compiled and can be used by projects that include our code plus the driver. Also, I do not understand how you conclude that adding community Oracle support was a mistake?
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:40 PM Brian Proffitt <b...@apache.org> wrote: > Yeah, so, catching up on this, and I have to say, I don't understand any > arguments to leave non-functional code that may not be in compliance > behind. Any code that jeopardizes compliance needs to be removed, and > workarounds created. > > If there is a genuine concern that somehow, some way, this code might be > used later, than that's what version control is for: go back to an older > version and pick up the code from there. > > The other mentors may have different solutions, but if you can scrape out > the driver (binaries and code) and the functionality won't break, then just > do it. > > On 2024/01/29 16:14:10 ricardo zanini fernandes wrote: > > I'd -1 to remove functional code added by a community member. This would > > pass the wrong message. > > Sorry, it does suck, but sometimes people make honest mistakes and they > might need correction. It's not a personal slight, especially when legal > compliance pretty much overrules this situation. > > [snip] > > Brian Proffitt > KIE mentor > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > >
