W dniu 29.03.2012 06:36, Michael Hudson-Doyle pisze:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:10:37 +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki zygmunt.krynicki@linaro.org wrote:

...

Hi.

Another specification for the backlog and your feedback. Please read this as I'd like to move towards planning dependency blueprints (even if they also end up in a backlog).

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/linaro-python-dashboard-bundle/+spec/plugga...

Hi,

Can you motivate this one a bit? It seems sort of vaguely reasonable (although I feel the creeping horrors of SGML and DTDs and things on the horizon), but I would like to know the problem you are solving here.

I actually wanted to avoid SGML that feels to be slowly creeping in. The motivation is to allow the core format to remain small and lean and to allow users to experiment with custom data sets. For example, if I want to include accurate kernel data it could go into a linux-specific section. If I want to include apt/dpkg data it could go into a dpkg-specific section. Likewise if I want to include some trace / profiler data specific to my application I could create my own representation and store the data there.

This goes hand in hand with plugs support in lava-test. I'd like to be able to say, run that test and capture this side band data with plugs A, B and C. Some ideas are: sampling CPU, memory, network and IO load, capturing GPU performance data, power measurement data. Capturing package data for non-apt systems.

Thanks ZK