On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gay...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the upstream >> >> >> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is >> >> >> different >> >> >> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for >> >> >> that, >> >> >> which >> >> >> requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor agreement. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale >> >> > inclusion >> >> > of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the >> >> > dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks >> >> > themselves >> >> > (e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without >> >> > getting >> >> > contributor agreements. >> >> >> >> The PyPy team need to put a clear license notice (similar to the one >> >> in the main pypy repo) on their benchmarks repo. But yes, I believe >> >> you're right that copying that code as it stands would technically be >> >> a copyright violation, even if the PyPy team intend for it to be >> >> allowed. >> >> >> >> If you're really concerned, check with Van first, but otherwise I'd >> >> just file a bug with the PyPy folks requesting that they clarify the >> >> licensing by adding a LICENSE file and in the meantime assume they >> >> intended for it to be covered by the MIT license, just like PyPy >> >> itself. >> >> >> >> The PSF license is necessary for CPython because of the long and >> >> complicated history of that code base. We can use simpler licenses for >> >> other stuff (like the benchmark suite) and just run with license in = >> >> license out rather than preserving the right for the PSF to change the >> >> license. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Nick. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Speed mailing list >> >> Speed@python.org >> >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed >> > >> > >> > First, I believe all the unalden swallow stuff (including the runner) is >> > under the PSF licence, though you'd have to check the repo for a license >> > file or bug Jeffrey and Collin. Someone (fijal) will add an MIT license >> > for >> > our half of the repo. >> > >> > >> > Alex >> >> Done. PyPy benchmarks are MIT > > > Great! Then I'm happy with moving PyPy benchmarks over wholesale. Are there > any benchmarks that are *really* good and are thus a priority to move, or > any that are just flat-out bad and I shouldn't bother moviing?
Note that not all benchmarks run nightly. twisted_accept for example run out of TCP connections. benchmarks.py is your helper. We improved the US runner qutie significantly (the main runner.py file), mostly by improving reporting. So it can save a .json file or upload stuff to a codespeed instance. Other than that, they all measure something. It's really up to you to decide which ones measure "something significant". Of course for our purposes benchmarks which require large libs are more interesting than others, but they all do something interesting. We removed those that we consider completely uninteresting. _______________________________________________ Speed mailing list Speed@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
