[dmd-internals] dmd commit, revision 534

[Brad Roberts]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Benjamin Shropshire wrote:

> > 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?

You seem to have read approximately only the first two paragraphs of the 
email.  Any comments on the rest?