On Sunday 02 July 2006 01:24, Michael G Schwern wrote: > On 7/1/06, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One thing I'm wondering about is > > whether you are going to code all of this into TAP::Harness from scratch. > > I believe I mentioned, I intend to steal lots of code from > Test::Harness and Straps. "Steal" in the cut & paste sense. I have > already adapted much of Straps->analyze_line as well as copied Point > and Results wholesale.
OK. Good. > > Folks might cringle at the cut & paste, but I do not TAP::Harness to > have any dependencies upon Test::Harness. > > > Plus, I've also been planning similar things for Test::Run too, (and > > already started implementing to some extent) > > I glanced at Test::Run today and had two initial observations. > > 1) Your licensing is possibly incompatible. You're using a mix of MIT > X11, BSD and Artistic. I'm not familiar with the former two. I can't > use anything not licensed Perl style. For one, it will not be able to > enter the core. OK, OK. Let me explain. When I say "BSD" there, it's actually "MIT X11" and that's because the "MIT X11" licence falls under the "BSD" licenses. The reason it says so is because module-starter did not have a choice for MIT X11, and so BSD was the closest thing. Not what are MIT X11/BSD? They are Public Domain-like licences that basically allow *almsot anything* to be done with the code (including relicensing under any different licences). For more information see: http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch19s05.html http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=130 http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=131 Now where it was used? Whenever I wrote entirely new code, from scratch. And I used the MIT X11 licence because I like to use it for code I'm starting from scratch, because it's the closest one get to Public Domain but keeping it copyrighted and without the warranty clause. There isn't any legal problem because MIT X11 is compatible with anything, and you can relicense it to the GPL+Artistic or whatever, or include it at the core using this licence. > > 2) I think your model does not perform a clean enough break with > Test::Harness compared to what I'm planning. I realize this claim is > vapor until I post the design. Yes. > > PS You might want to fix your copyright notices. I thank you for > retaining our copyright for our portions of the code you took from > Test::Harness but we do not have copyright over Test::Run::Obj, for > example. IANAL so I don't know what should be there, but it probably > shouldn't just be me and Andy. > Test::Run::Obj is derived from Test::Harness. From what I recall, I left the copyright notice verbatim from Test::Harness. (and to not complicate things further, diclaimed any ownership of my own changes). > > I'd hate to see some duplicate effort. > > Sometimes you have to make a clean break with the past. The code in > Test::Harness was started almost 20 years ago. That's right, t/TEST > in Perl 1 became Test::Harness. Its designed along procedural lines > and we've been trying to slowly morph it into a more flexible model > over the years and still haven't succeeded. Its not a large or > complex module, it should not take this long I see. > > Further, I think the duplication is healthy. Part of the problem with > Test::Harness is its the only game in town. Its the only thing which > can parse TAP. Its very bad for a protocol to have only one > implementation. The monolithic and inflexible nature of Test::Harness > has held back Perl testing in the last few years. Having more than > one TAP harness implementation will be healthy. OK. > > I'm starting over. You're free to do whatever you want. > > > Please do not consider this email as an attack against your attempt to > > write code or fix what's broken with Test::Harness. I don't mind having > > some competition. However, I'm trying to see whether there is some way we > > can consolidate our efforts. > > Licencing issues mentioned above prevent any code sharing, but I'll > look at your lightning talk and see what ideas I can steal. Thanks. And like I said the licencing issues are non-existent. If you wish, you can take my original MIT X11 code and relicence it with the GPL+Artistic licence. But you can also safely use it as it is, which would be preferable. Regards, Shlomi Fish --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/ 95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the bottom 5%.
