[dmd-internals] dmd commit, revision 534

[Benjamin Shropshire]

Brad Roberts wrote:
> 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?
>
>   

Darn tiny net-book screen must have ended at a paragraph gap :(

That said, I don't have much of an opinion on it any way: 1) INAL but I 
don't think there would be any more problems hosting code with different 
licenses in the same repo than there would be on the same host and 2) if 
it were up to me I'd stuff all of them in, maybe moving the ones that 
dstress ones that pass into a "fulltest" target so they can be skip most 
of the time.