On 5/15/14, 9:30, "chru...@suse.cz" <chru...@suse.cz> wrote:
>Hi! >> I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some >> advantage to keeping futextest independent. > >What advantages did you have in mind? Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-) OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here... But since you asked, back in '09 LTP had some test quality issues and I felt I could maintain futextest to a higher bar independently. > >> Perhaps things have changed enough since then (~2009 era) that we >> should reconsider. > >I've been working on LTP for a about three years now and we happen to do >quite a lot in that time. The most visible changes would be more proper >development practices (git, proper build system, code review, LKML >coding style, documentation, ...) and also huge number of fixes. Now we >are trying to catch up in coverage too. > >> We can discuss the pros/cons there if you like. > >I would love to :). Does LTP need to own the code, or can it incorporate existing projects and a sort of aggregator? How much LTP harness type code needs to be used? -- Darren Hart Open Source Technology Center darren.h...@intel.com Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
