Hi Cleber,
I will shorten this email a lot while replying because I have the
impression that most of the discussion isn't actually as productive as
it could be. I'm not trying to evade on any point that I'm cutting out,
so if there is something specific in the part I'm removing that you
would like
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 09:43:49AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>
> On 11/13/18 9:32 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 09:20:11AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> >
> > With check-venv, we made "installing avocado" a small
> > implementation detail that people don't need to care abou
On 11/13/18 9:32 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 09:20:11AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>
> With check-venv, we made "installing avocado" a small
> implementation detail that people don't need to care about when
> running the tests.
>
> I believe the sentence "which must be i
On 11/13/18 8:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:39:57AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Drive-by comment...
>>
>> Cleber Rosa writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>> My impression is that the "infrastructure for block tests" is not that
>>> different from the infrastructure neede
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 09:20:11AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>
>
> On 11/13/18 8:51 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 13.11.2018 um 14:26 hat Eduardo Habkost geschrieben:
> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:18:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Anyway, one specific concern about the "simple wa
On 11/13/18 8:51 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 13.11.2018 um 14:26 hat Eduardo Habkost geschrieben:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:18:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Anyway, one specific concern about the "simple way" I have is that we're
>>> adding a hard dependency on an external packag
On 11/13/18 7:18 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 12.11.2018 um 18:36 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben:
>> I hope you don't blame me for trying to have the advantage of the
>> counter answer. :)
>
> Thanks for being so honest, but do you actually need this advantage when
> you have good technical arguments
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 02:51:16PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 13.11.2018 um 14:26 hat Eduardo Habkost geschrieben:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:18:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Anyway, one specific concern about the "simple way" I have is that we're
> > > adding a hard dependen
Am 13.11.2018 um 14:26 hat Eduardo Habkost geschrieben:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:18:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> [...]
> > Anyway, one specific concern about the "simple way" I have is that we're
> > adding a hard dependency on an external package (Avocado) that isn't
> > usually installed a
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:39:57AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Drive-by comment...
>
> Cleber Rosa writes:
>
> [...]
> > My impression is that the "infrastructure for block tests" is not that
> > different from the infrastructure needed by other tests, specially other
> > QEMU tests.
> [..
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:18:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, one specific concern about the "simple way" I have is that we're
> adding a hard dependency on an external package (Avocado) that isn't
> usually installed anyway on developer machines. Maintainers will of
> course just ins
Am 12.11.2018 um 18:36 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben:
> I hope you don't blame me for trying to have the advantage of the
> counter answer. :)
Thanks for being so honest, but do you actually need this advantage when
you have good technical arguments in favour of your proposal?
> >> And run all test
Drive-by comment...
Cleber Rosa writes:
[...]
> My impression is that the "infrastructure for block tests" is not that
> different from the infrastructure needed by other tests, specially other
> QEMU tests.
[...]
Yes. The actual reason for having a completely separate testing
infrastructure f
On 11/12/18 11:00 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 12.11.2018 um 15:59 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben:
>>
>> On 11/12/18 5:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 09.11.2018 um 23:12 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben:
The initial goal of this RFC is to get feedback on tests not specific
to the QEMU main bina
Am 12.11.2018 um 15:59 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben:
>
> On 11/12/18 5:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 09.11.2018 um 23:12 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben:
> >> The initial goal of this RFC is to get feedback on tests not specific
> >> to the QEMU main binary, but specific to other components such as
>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:59:56AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>
> On 11/12/18 5:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 09.11.2018 um 23:12 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben:
> >> The initial goal of this RFC is to get feedback on tests not specific
> >> to the QEMU main binary, but specific to other components
On 11/12/18 5:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 09.11.2018 um 23:12 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben:
>> The initial goal of this RFC is to get feedback on tests not specific
>> to the QEMU main binary, but specific to other components such as
>> qemu-img.
>>
>> For this experiment, a small issue with the
Am 09.11.2018 um 23:12 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben:
> The initial goal of this RFC is to get feedback on tests not specific
> to the QEMU main binary, but specific to other components such as
> qemu-img.
>
> For this experiment, a small issue with the zero and negative number
> of I/O operations g
The initial goal of this RFC is to get feedback on tests not specific
to the QEMU main binary, but specific to other components such as
qemu-img.
For this experiment, a small issue with the zero and negative number
of I/O operations given to the bench command was chosen.
Cleber Rosa (2):
Accept
19 matches
Mail list logo
