[dmd-internals] dmd commit, revision 534

[Benjamin Shropshire]

Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>
>   
>> Brad Roberts, el 14 de junio a las 10:16 me escribiste:
>>     
>>> On 6/14/2010 6:02 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Brad Roberts, el 13 de junio a las 17:23 me escribiste:
>>>>         
>>>>> On 6/13/2010 1:30 PM, Benjamin Shropshire wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Brad Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> The problem with incorporating fixes from other sources is the same as
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> source code, the license they're under.  DStress has never made that
>>>>>>> clear,
>>>>>>> though it's intention is very clear.
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> IIRC some big swaths of DStress are explicitly linked to bug numbers.
>>>>>> Either derived from code in the bug to written explicitly to show a
>>>>>> specific bug. I wonder if the author of DStress (is he still around?)
>>>>>> would, at a minimum, place /them/ under some acceptable license (or even
>>>>>> public domain).
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Yes, many are either directly in bugzilla or linked from it.  Since dstress is
>>>>> gpl v2 (see other email on this thread)
>>>>>           
>>>> What issues do you find in using some test cases with GPL license in
>>>> a test suite?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I really don't want to have tests under various licenses.  It's overly
>>> confusing.
>>>       
>> Confusing how? For test cases there are no issues as with the standard
>> library, which will be included in every (commercial) product compiled
>> with DMD and *must* have a rally permissive license.
>>
>> You just need to be able to use and modify the tests, that's it. I think
>> it's a shame to discard a *lot* of good tests, with a license that is
>> more than sufficient for what is required just because, well, it's
>> "confusing". I can't even see where can it be any confusion, maybe
>> a little more maintenance work, but really, a simple line in each
>> file with License: BSD/GPL/Boost/whatever is enough. Write one, don't
>> care again ever! =)
>>
>> If you decide not to include test with a license different from Boost
>> (or whatever you like), I hope it has a real good rationale behind and
>> is not just some allergy to GPL or some reflex from the traumatic Phobos
>> license change =P
>>     
>
> The test style for dmd is many tests per file.  To merge in dstress tests 
> with a different license would by that nature result in different blocks 
> of code within the same file falling under different licenses?  No, not 
> going to happen.
>
> So, that leaves the option of drawing a license barrier between files.  
> That's certainly better, but also is far from ideal, imho.
>
> All that said, there's a last reason that's not been discussed in this 
> thread yet which is redundancy between the suites.  It'd be stupid to just 
> squish them together and celebrate.  MANY of the tests are redundant.  
> Determining which are and which aren't.. sigh.
>
> Obviously any test that fails in dstress (or the ldc suite) against 
> current dmd isn't covered by the dmd test suite (since it passes 100%.. 
> being one of the primary release criteria for all dmd releases).  THOSE 
> are clearly worth adding.  I expect most (and would hope all, but I'm not 
> that stupid) of those are also in bugzilla, which has a clear public 
> domain label on all submissions.
>
>
> You're right in that we shouldn't raise license concerns needlessly, but 
> neither should we proceed recklessly.  The DMD bundle is already a mess 
> with respect to multiple licenses (parts non-redistributable (backend), 
> parts redistributable under two licenses (artistic and gplv1)(frontend)).
> I don't know that it's a problem to mix gpl2 into that mess, but I'd 
> prefer not to find out if it can be avoided.  
>
> So.. considering the above.  The question left in my mind is:
>
> Is there enough value in digging out tests in dstress that aren't in 
> bugzilla attached to yet-to-be-fixed-bugs that it's worth both accepting 
> multiple licenses on the tests and actually going through the effort to 
> dig out those tests?
>
> My gut tells me no, but, please, keep trying to convince me I'm wrong.
>
> The irony (agony?) here is that if Thomas were still around, I suspect 
> he'd say 'do what ever you want with them'.
>   

Then merge the GPL test into one file (gpl.d?) and put the non-GPL in 
another. It's not "one big test" is it?