X Test Suite Redux

[Aaron Plattner]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 03:20:03PM -0700, Aaron Plattner wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 03:09:02PM -0700, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:46:58AM -0700, Aaron Plattner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:09:06PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Aaron Plattner <aplattner at nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 06:07:14AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > > > > >> A while back Peter asked me about helping him add autotools support
> > > > > >> after he pulled xtest out of cvs into git. We got that handled pretty
> > > > > >> quickly, but I decided to spend some time making it actually easy to
> > > > > >> use. So, I give you the revamped XTS:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>         git://people.freedesktop.org/~dbn/xtest.git
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan, is xtest really licensed under the "Artistic" license?  I have some
> > > > > > changes pending to clean up a whole lot of warnings, but I just noticed
> > > > > > this term in the license:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way,
> > > > > >      provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file
> > > > > >      stating how and when you changed that file, [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to avoid having to go through and add a change note to all 551
> > > > > > files I've touched so far.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think the Artistic license applies to the bundled tet code (the test
> > > > > platform) in src/. This is what License says. However, everything
> > > > > under xts5 (the test suite itself) appears to be under the X11
> > > > > license. So, if you've kept your modifications to xts5/, you're OK. Of
> > > > > course, now it appears I'll have to do that to address the hacking I
> > > > > did to the test platform to make it behave reasonably. What a weak
> > > > > license.
> > > > 
> > > > Okay.  I did touch a bunch of files in tet, but it was easy to use a script
> > > > to do it (vim is awesome).  There are still a ton of warnings to go in
> > > > xts5, but I think this is a good start.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The following changes since commit 1f9c7db3a60e22b06bd5b5b457ed048f89031b24:
> > > >   Jon TURNEY (1):
> > > >         xts5: Make sure libXR5 preceeds the libraries it depends upon in the link order
> > > > 
> > > > are available in the git repository at:
> > > > 
> > > >   git://people.freedesktop.org/~aplattner/xtest master
> > > > 
> > > > Aaron Plattner (8):
> > > >       tet: Fix "sccsid defined but not used" warnings.
> > > >       tet: Fix "srcFile defined but not used" warnings.
> > > >       tet: Fix "ambiguous else" warnings.
> > > >       tet: Fix the remaining warnings.
> > > >       tet: Add change notifications to comply with the annoying terms of the 'Artistic' license.
> > > >       xts5: Fix "missing braces around initializer" warnings.
> > > >       xts5: Fix "unused variable" warnings.
> > > 
> > > in this patch, in xts5/src/lib/startup.c:
> > > -extern char    *TestName;
> > > +/* APTETS extern       char    *TestName; */
> > >
> > > that seems like an odd change.
> > 
> > It's supposed to match this code later, except that I typo'd it:
> > 
> > /*APTEST
> >         (void) sprintf(buf, "TRACE:NAME: %s", TestName);
> >         tet_infoline(buf);
> > */
> > 
> > Do you think it's worth fixing?  I could just delete the commented-out
> > code, since it exists in revision control.
>
> is /*APTEST supposed to do something special?
> 
> if not, just do a follow-up patch and delete it, or squash it in. I don't
> have a preference either way.

I don't think so... "git grep APTEST" only shows it in a few comments.
Presumably it was just a grep target.  I'll send Dan a followup change to
delete it.

> > > >       xts5: Fix "format 'blah' expects type 'blah' but argument has type 'blah'" warnings.
> > > > 
> > > >  555 files changed, 1833 insertions(+), 3841 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net>
> > 
> > I'm not too familiar with the procedure for this... should I add your
> > Acked-by to all the changes, or is rewinding the published HEAD to rewrite
> > the commit logs bad form?
> 
> two options. what I did with a few pull requests that got a late acked-by, I
> just added this to the merge commit so it's saved somewhere. that of course
> requires a non-fast-forward pull.

Or a git pull --no-ff.

> the other option is to edit the tree. I do the editing with my branches
> sometimes, if I'm only adding acked-by and reviewed-by, then I'm not
> destroying testing history. and if it's a pull-branch only, it won't matter
> much if the shas change anyway.
> 
> Or, the third (out of two options) is to simply take the acked-by as a,
> "yeah, that'll be alright to merge" and ignore it. :) 
> which was mostly how it was meant anyway. I dont thing the XTS requires the
> same process as the server just yet.

Okay, thanks.  I'll choose your option #3 of 2, then.  :)