Re: [Xen-devel] xenbits "official" repo for XTF (was Re: [PATCH 0/2] xtf: add launcher (+1 bugfix)

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/07/16 18:17, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Alright,
>
> it appears we are at an impasse here. Not hosting the code on xenbits as
> suggested by David, seems to be the worst solution and will benefit
> no-one. 
>
>> If we can't get consensus on something like this, the sensible thing
>> to do would be to vote. Our governance docs don't really cope with
>> this kind of multi-answer question; they only do yes/no.
> I am not convinced that we need a formal process in this case. Our
> governance has the mechanism to referee, when there is disagreement. For
> code changes the referee would be the maintainer/committer which owns a
> piece of code and the mechanism would work by withholding an ACK. For
> unowned changes the referee would be the project lead: but we have none
> and in fact we want none.
>
> The next level up is the Advisory Board: but I really don't want to go to
> the AB with a bike-shed issue like this.
>
>
> In particular as WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE CONSENSUS for a compromise by the two
> main people disagreeing.
>
>> On 20/06/16 18:03, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I could live with "xtf", although I think it's rather too short.
>
>
>> On 07/07/2016 12:26, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 07/07/16 12:10, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>> @Andrew: would something like test/xtf.git work
>> It would, although given a straight choice I would prefer
>> xen-test-framework.git over its abbreviation.
>
> So let's just go with "./xtf.git" and make use of the "Description" field
> in http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/ to add a bit more verbosity. Adding
> something such as "Xen Test Framework and Suite for creating
> microkernel-based tests". This is accurate and searchable.
>
> It is no worse than "raisin.git", "osstest.git", and other top-level repos.
>
> Maybe we can make improve the description for "./osstest.git": something
> along the lines of "Xen Test Framework and Suite, used for Open Source Xen
> Continuous Integration that also acts as push gate" or something like it.
> That would be more accurate than what we have now.
>
> Compromise
> A.1) Create "xtf.git" and use "Xen Test Framework and Suite for creating
> microkernel-based tests" in Description field
>
> A.2) Update description for osstest.git to "Xen Test Framework and Suite,
> used for Open Source Xen Continuous Integration that also acts as push
> gate"
>
>> Out of curiosity, I searched for it on google, and found my written
>> documentation as the top hit.
>>
>>
>> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=xen+test+framework&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws
>> _rd=cr&ei=InxeV52HDYHc-QG0-qN4
> That has nothing to do with the repo name. The reason why google finds
> this page is because
> http://xenbits.xen.org/people/andrewcoop/xen-test-framework/ exists, but
> no equivalent page exists for OSSTEST.
>
>
> Improvements to web searchability for "xen test framework" to ensure that
> searches for both frameworks lead somewhere sensible
> B.1) http://xenbits.xen.org/people/andrewcoop/xen-test-framework/ should
> be move under docs and re-named to "XTF: Xen Test Framework and Suite for
> creating microkernel-based tests"
>
> B.2) Add a similar page under docs for OSSTEST with a similarly verbose
> title, e.g. "OSSTEST: Xen Test Framework and Suite for Open Source Xen
> Continuous Integration"
>
> That should address everyones concern, as far as I can tell from the the
> e-mail thread. If anyone disagrees, please shout within the next few days.
>
> Best Regards
> Lars
> P.S.: I moved fixing some of our governance issues towards the top of my
> TODO list

I have no problem with Ian's earlier suggestion:

> "CI (continuous integration)" is the keyword that many people will
> have for osstest.
>
> I would suggest
>
>   (This is not the Xen Project's CI / Continuous Integration /
>    automated push gate system.  For that, see
>    <a href="wiki">osstest</a>.)
>
> or something.

Adding something like that to the XTF documentation is perfectly fine. 
I also have no problem with the other xtf changes in descriptions/etc
suggested.


However, OSSTest has always been known as OSSTest (including all
references in the automated emails), and not as a xen test framework. 
Taking any steps to make OSSTest retroactively searchable as a xen test
framework is a dumb move, which will only confuse users.

I fully admit that had OSSTest been named differently then I might not
have chosen XTF as a name, but that didn't happen.  Trying to rewrite
history isn't the answer.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel