Zygmunt Krynicki zygmunt.krynicki@linaro.org writes:
W dniu 19.10.2012 02:03, Michael Hudson-Doyle pisze:
Still, I'd like to keep this separate but open for discussion. Do you think you would consider working on a non-lava-specific test repository during the next cycle? If so then I would gladly move the spec to the test case management wiki that mwhudson created.
I think it depends on the nature of the solution. If the solution mostly consists of a protocol definition, I would think that the lava test repository would probably be a part of the same lava server process/database we already have. But not completely sure.
As for using or not using lava-server for this: I'm almost sure you'd need a part in lava-server to solve your goals but it does not exclude a third party system that can be shared by others. I think that a successful, pypi-like (single archive) test definition repository cannot depend on the existing lava infrastructure but I'm open to counter-arguments.
If we go for a single archive solution then I don't think it would make sense to use the lava infrastructure. (It's actually tempting to use this as a learn-mongodb project, but we probably shouldn't do that either :-p).
Cheers, mwh