Re: Test code is worth the space

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > * Michael Paquier (michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> > The regression tests included in pgBackRest (available here:
> >> > https://github.com/pgmasters/backrest) go through a number of different
> >> > recovery tests. There's vagrant configs for a few different VMs too
> >> > (CentOS 6, CentOS 7, Ubuntu 12.04 and Ubuntu 14.04) which is what we've
> >> > been testing.
> >> > We're working to continue expanding those tests and will also be adding
> >> > tests for replication and promotion in the future. Eventually, we plan
> >> > to write a buildfarm module for pgBackRest, to allow it to be run in the
> >> > same manner as the regular buildfarm animals with the results posted.
> >>
> >> Interesting. Do you mind if I pick up from it some ideas for the
> >> in-core replication test suite based on TAP stuff? That's still in the
> >> works for the next CF.
> >
> > Certainly don't mind at all, entirely open source under the MIT
> > license.
>
> Why not the PG license? It would be nicer if we didn't have to worry
> about license contamination here.

There is no conflict between the licenses and pgBackRest is not part of
nor maintained as part of the PostgreSQL project.

Not that I'm against that changing, certainly, but it was independently
developed and I wouldn't ask the community to take on maintaining
something which wasn't developed following the community process, not to
mention that I imagine some would probably want it rewritten in C.

We clearly have dependencies, to the extent that there's concern about
licenses, on much more restrictive and interesting licenses, and there
currently isn't even any real dependency here and would only be if the
PGDG decided to fork pgBackRest and start maintaining it independently.

Thanks!

Stephen