[nomaster] SI-7195 minor version mustn't introduce warnings

We want 2.10.1 to be a drop-in replacement for 2.10.0,
so we can't start warning where we weren't warning in 2.10.0.

See SI-5954 (#1882, #2079) for when it was an implementation restriction,
which was then weakened to a warning. It's now hidden behind -Ydebug.

3 files changed, 0 insertions, 63 deletions

diff --git a/test/files/neg/t5954.check b/test/files/neg/t5954.check
deleted file mode 100644
index ed10658b24..0000000000
--- a/test/files/neg/t5954.check
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
-t5954.scala:36: error: class D should be placed directly in package A instead of package object A. Under some circumstances companion objects and case classes in package objects can fail to recompile. See https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-5954.
-  case class D()
-             ^
-t5954.scala:35: error: object C should be placed directly in package A instead of package object A. Under some circumstances companion objects and case classes in package objects can fail to recompile. See https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-5954.
-  object C
-         ^
-t5954.scala:34: error: trait C should be placed directly in package A instead of package object A. Under some circumstances companion objects and case classes in package objects can fail to recompile. See https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-5954.
-  trait C
-        ^
-t5954.scala:33: error: object B should be placed directly in package A instead of package object A. Under some circumstances companion objects and case classes in package objects can fail to recompile. See https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-5954.
-  object B
-         ^
-t5954.scala:32: error: class B should be placed directly in package A instead of package object A. Under some circumstances companion objects and case classes in package objects can fail to recompile. See https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-5954.
-  class B
-        ^
-5 errors found
diff --git a/test/files/neg/t5954.flags b/test/files/neg/t5954.flags
deleted file mode 100644
index 85d8eb2ba2..0000000000
--- a/test/files/neg/t5954.flags
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1 +0,0 @@
--Xfatal-warnings
diff --git a/test/files/neg/t5954.scala b/test/files/neg/t5954.scala
deleted file mode 100644
index 3ccb5ed3ff..0000000000
--- a/test/files/neg/t5954.scala
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,46 +0,0 @@
-// if you ever think you've fixed the underlying reason for the warning
-// imposed by SI-5954, then here's a test that should pass with two "succes"es
-//
-//import scala.tools.partest._
-//
-//object Test extends DirectTest {
-//  def code = ???
-//
-//  def problemCode = """
-//    package object A {
-//      class B
-//      object B
-//      case class C()
-//    }
-//  """
-//
-//  def compileProblemCode() = {
-//    val classpath = List(sys.props("partest.lib"), testOutput.path) mkString sys.props("path.separator")
-//    compileString(newCompiler("-cp", classpath, "-d", testOutput.path))(problemCode)
-//  }
-//
-//  def show() : Unit = {
-//    for (i <- 0 until 2) {
-//      compileProblemCode()
-//      println(s"success ${i + 1}")
-//    }
-//  }
-//}
-
-package object A {
-  // these should be prevented by the implementation restriction
-  class B
-  object B
-  trait C
-  object C
-  case class D()
-  // all the rest of these should be ok
-  class E
-  object F
-  val g = "omg"
-  var h = "wtf"
-  def i = "lol"
-  type j = String
-  class K(val k : Int) extends AnyVal
-  implicit class L(val l : Int)
-}