qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Future goals for autotest and virtualization test


From: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Future goals for autotest and virtualization tests
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:40:10 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1

On 03/09/2012 11:13 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
It is indeed a bit nerve wrecking to hear that all you can do with the
stuff you
have been working on the last 3 years can be done better with a dozen
of shell
script functions. It's similar to say that we just like to throw lines
at a text
editor just for the fun of it. I am sure you didn't mean it but that
is how it
sounded, and that's why I'd like to assure that the code there *does
stuff*.

Look at how this discussion started. We've been discussing testing on
qemu-devel at excruciating length and detail and have finally come to
something of a consensus. AFAIK, no one from autotest has participated
in those discussions which is fair as I'm sure ya'll don't read
qemu-devel religiously.

All right, point taken.

Then we see this note that more or less declares, this is how QEMU
should do all of its testing. What reaction did you really expect there
to be? :-)

It was an attempt to offer what we have rather than dictating how QEMU should do all its testing:

"""
One of our main goals is to provide useful tools for the qemu community,
since we have a good number of tests and libraries written to perform
integration/QA testing for that tool, being successfuly used by a number
of QA teams that work on qemu.
"""

I re-read the first message I sent, and certainly did not find where we declare that this is the way QEMU should do its testing.

If you judge that there's nothing interesting there for qemu, I'm fine with it. That all said, certainly I did not expect your repeated attempts to show that you can do it all better with a couple of shell script lines, oh boy, I did not.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]