W dniu 18.10.2012 16:28, Abner Silva pisze:
Hello,
So on a tangent somewhat, I've started a document (feel free to contribute) on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxWJ5kQj3zVKB45fOOEpk2udrRM1Z0RgHly_3KQT...
Please add comments there. This will allow us to have a better understanding of the topic before UDS/Linaro Connect even starts
Thanks ZK
On 10/18/2012 12:03 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
W dniu 18.10.2012 16:28, Abner Silva pisze:
Hello,
So on a tangent somewhat, I've started a document (feel free to contribute) on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxWJ5kQj3zVKB45fOOEpk2udrRM1Z0RgHly_3KQT...
Is there a reason you created new doc rather than using the wiki page Michael had created[1]. He had placed a comments section at the end for this type of thing.
1. https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/LAVA/Specs/TestCaseManagement
Please add comments there. This will allow us to have a better understanding of the topic before UDS/Linaro Connect even starts
Thanks ZK
W dniu 18.10.2012 19:36, Andy Doan pisze:
On 10/18/2012 12:03 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
W dniu 18.10.2012 16:28, Abner Silva pisze:
Hello,
So on a tangent somewhat, I've started a document (feel free to contribute) on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxWJ5kQj3zVKB45fOOEpk2udrRM1Z0RgHly_3KQT...
Is there a reason you created new doc rather than using the wiki page Michael had created[1]. He had placed a comments section at the end for this type of thing.
Not really, no, after thinking about it now, partially yes.
I did not want to diverge the topic of the Connect discussion which may or may not be actually aiming at a construction of a unaffiliated test repository. The discussion in the wiki is specific to LAVA and I'd like to document what may be needed by various teams that I'm familiar with as well as explicitly open for others (in the weak term of comments which are somewhat less-than-perfect)
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.
Best regards ZK
Zygmunt Krynicki zygmunt.krynicki@linaro.org writes:
W dniu 18.10.2012 19:36, Andy Doan pisze:
On 10/18/2012 12:03 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
W dniu 18.10.2012 16:28, Abner Silva pisze:
Hello,
So on a tangent somewhat, I've started a document (feel free to contribute) on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxWJ5kQj3zVKB45fOOEpk2udrRM1Z0RgHly_3KQT...
Is there a reason you created new doc rather than using the wiki page Michael had created[1]. He had placed a comments section at the end for this type of thing.
Not really, no, after thinking about it now, partially yes.
I did not want to diverge the topic of the Connect discussion which may or may not be actually aiming at a construction of a unaffiliated test repository. The discussion in the wiki is specific to LAVA and I'd like to document what may be needed by various teams that I'm familiar with as well as explicitly open for others (in the weak term of comments which are somewhat less-than-perfect)
I think I agree with this, tbh. It's an interesting idea that may meet our needs, but we should concentrate on explicating our needs first.
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.
Cheers, mwh
W dniu 19.10.2012 02:03, Michael Hudson-Doyle pisze:
I did not want to diverge the topic of the Connect discussion which may or may not be actually aiming at a construction of a unaffiliated test repository. The discussion in the wiki is specific to LAVA and I'd like to document what may be needed by various teams that I'm familiar with as well as explicitly open for others (in the weak term of comments which are somewhat less-than-perfect)
I think I agree with this, tbh. It's an interesting idea that may meet our needs, but we should concentrate on explicating our needs first.
I agree, hence more discussion on the problem than code/patches offering domain-specific solution.
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.
Thanks ZK
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
linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org
-
Andy Doan -
Michael Hudson-Doyle -
Zygmunt Krynicki