[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] xenbits "official" repo for XTF (was Re: [PATCH 0/2] xtf: add launcher (+1 bugfix)
On 01/07/2016 20:04, "Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >David Vrabel writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] xenbits "official" repo for XTF >(was Re: [PATCH 0/2] xtf: add launcher (+1 bugfix)"): >> On 20/06/16 18:03, Ian Jackson wrote: >> > Hopefully we can find one that Andrew likes and that's acceptable to >> > the committers. >> > >> > I suggest >> > xen-microvm-test-framework >> > xen-microvm-test-suite >> > xtf-microvm-suite >> >> "xtf" > >iwj@xenbits:~$ ls ~xen/git >kemari qemu-xen-4.1-testing.git >libvirt.git qemu-xen-4.2-testing.git >linux-2.6-xen.git qemu-xen-4.3-testing.git >linux-pvops.git qemu-xen-4.4-testing.git >livepatch-build-tools.git qemu-xen-4.5-testing.git >mini-os.git qemu-xen-4.6-testing.git >osstest qemu-xen.git >osstest.git qemu-xen-traditional.git >ovmf.git qemu-xen-unstable.git >people raisin.git >pvdrivers rumpuser-xen.git >qemu-upstream-4.2-testing.git seabios.git >qemu-upstream-4.3-testing.git staging >qemu-upstream-4.4-testing.git xcp >qemu-upstream-4.5-testing.git xenalyze.git >qemu-upstream-4.6-testing.git xenclient >qemu-upstream-unstable.git xen.git >qemu-xen-3.3-testing.git xen.git-aside >qemu-xen-3.4-testing.git xenrt-citrix >qemu-xen-4.0-testing.git xentesttools >iwj@xenbits:~$ > >> It seems unfair to give Andrew's project a clunky (repo) name because >> osstest is not sufficiently discoverable. > >Is that a complaint that it's too long ? > >I could live with "xtf", although I think it's rather too short. Let me just summarise my understanding of the discussion: A) The label xtf has been around for a while, thus changing it may be confusing B) Generally there is concern about not being able to discover test related technology easily in the git tree C) More verbose repository names seem to be a little long D) None of the other proposals on the table seem to be much clearer / more accurate I couldn't tell from the thread who really is in favour. As far as I can tell 1 committer is in favour of using xtf.git 2 committer have voiced concrete concerns A number of other committers and Linux maintainers have provided some input, but have not been very clear about their position. Looking at the above, it occurs to me that, this whole area seems to be a little inconsistent anyway and could do with a little house-keeping. We have - osstest.git - there also is osstest/*.git which seems to be odd and seems to have been inactive for a while (not very clear to me what these do) - and we have old and inactive xentesttools/*.git - and we are adding a new repo for XTF Maybe, moving everything test related under testing/* or test/* would be sensible, but that would cause some disruption (not sure how bad that would be). It would address A, B and D. It wouldn't make C much worse than now. We already follow a similar pattern for out-of-tree via pvdrivers/* It does in fact occur to me that some of the older inactive repos should be archived somehow: candidates seem to be kemari/*, xentesttools/*, xenclient/*, xcp/*, ... pollute the namespace. If we are concerned about the namespace, we should address this at some point. There are also some inactive top level git repos such as linux-2.5-xen.git and quite a few inactive people repos. >Lars, can you please advise what process we need to use to come to >closure on this decision ? Really we need to come to some sort of proposal. My gut feel is that maybe this would most quickly resolved in a short IRC meeting, where we discuss this issue and reduce it down to a concrete proposal (IRC log could then be posted) and then put it to a vote, if need be. Otherwise this discussion will drag on for a while as e-mail. Lars _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |