Agree to keep tests with main repo as suggested as tests are tied to releases. Backward compatibility of framework need to be considered when breaking it apart as we still use the framework on older branches for validation of patches.
-----Original Message----- From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 2:08 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Breaking out Marvin from CloudStack > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chipchild...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 1:10 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Breaking out Marvin from CloudStack > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:38:33PM +0000, Alex Huang wrote: > > I don't really understand what purpose would this serve. Would we > ever use newer marvin against older CloudStack or vice versa? What's > the benefit? > > > > I can understand it for cloudmonkey because cloudmonkey is an admin > cli tool and reving it differently is not a bad idea. I just don't > see it for marvin and, especially for the tests. > > > > --Alex > > IMO, we should consider Marvin the "framework" to be the thing to > break out, and the tests should be different from the framework. > > Now that leads to the question: to test or not to test (in the main > repo)? > > I'd suggest that *tests* belong in the main repo, because they are > tied to the software's capabilities and versions. > > The Marvin framework, on the other hand, since the re-work that > Prasanna did, is mostly distinct (and uses API discovery). > > Anyone else agree? [Animesh>] I agree tests belong in the main repo. Breaking up the marvin framework gives flexibility in its usage beyond cloudstack and separate release cycle.
