Alright, it appears we are at an impasse here. Not hosting the code on xenbits as suggested by David, seems to be the worst solution and will benefit no-one.
> If we can't get consensus on something like this, the sensible thing > to do would be to vote. Our governance docs don't really cope with > this kind of multi-answer question; they only do yes/no. I am not convinced that we need a formal process in this case. Our governance has the mechanism to referee, when there is disagreement. For code changes the referee would be the maintainer/committer which owns a piece of code and the mechanism would work by withholding an ACK. For unowned changes the referee would be the project lead: but we have none and in fact we want none. The next level up is the Advisory Board: but I really don't want to go to the AB with a bike-shed issue like this. In particular as WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE CONSENSUS for a compromise by the two main people disagreeing. > On 20/06/16 18:03, Ian Jackson wrote: > I could live with "xtf", although I think it's rather too short. > On 07/07/2016 12:26, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 07/07/16 12:10, Lars Kurth wrote: >> @Andrew: would something like test/xtf.git work > It would, although given a straight choice I would prefer > xen-test-framework.git over its abbreviation. So let's just go with "./xtf.git" and make use of the "Description" field in http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/ to add a bit more verbosity. Adding something such as "Xen Test Framework and Suite for creating microkernel-based tests". This is accurate and searchable. It is no worse than "raisin.git", "osstest.git", and other top-level repos. Maybe we can make improve the description for "./osstest.git": something along the lines of "Xen Test Framework and Suite, used for Open Source Xen Continuous Integration that also acts as push gate" or something like it. That would be more accurate than what we have now. Compromise A.1) Create "xtf.git" and use "Xen Test Framework and Suite for creating microkernel-based tests" in Description field A.2) Update description for osstest.git to "Xen Test Framework and Suite, used for Open Source Xen Continuous Integration that also acts as push gate" > Out of curiosity, I searched for it on google, and found my written > documentation as the top hit. > > >https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=xen+test+framework&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws >_rd=cr&ei=InxeV52HDYHc-QG0-qN4 That has nothing to do with the repo name. The reason why google finds this page is because http://xenbits.xen.org/people/andrewcoop/xen-test-framework/ exists, but no equivalent page exists for OSSTEST. Improvements to web searchability for "xen test framework" to ensure that searches for both frameworks lead somewhere sensible B.1) http://xenbits.xen.org/people/andrewcoop/xen-test-framework/ should be move under docs and re-named to "XTF: Xen Test Framework and Suite for creating microkernel-based tests" B.2) Add a similar page under docs for OSSTEST with a similarly verbose title, e.g. "OSSTEST: Xen Test Framework and Suite for Open Source Xen Continuous Integration" That should address everyones concern, as far as I can tell from the the e-mail thread. If anyone disagrees, please shout within the next few days. Best Regards Lars P.S.: I moved fixing some of our governance issues towards the top of my TODO list On 07/07/2016 15:11, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >On 07/07/16 14:59, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] xenbits "official" repo for XTF >>(was Re: [PATCH 0/2] xtf: add launcher (+1 bugfix)"): >>> On 07/07/16 12:10, Lars Kurth wrote: >>>> @Andrew: would something like test/xtf.git work >> I would live with that. >> >>> It would, although given a straight choice I would prefer >>> xen-test-framework.git over its abbreviation. >> This conversation is in danger of going round in circles. > >Right - let me draw a line in the sand. > >The current name is xen-test-framework, and that has been around and >used for several years now. XTF is also used frequently as an >abbreviation. > >A concern has been raised about the correctness of this name, but no >alternatives have been suggested which come close to being a plausible >replacement. (All suggestions are less accurate or descriptive than the >current name). > >As the author, I chose the current name, and chose it as the most >appropriate name I could think of. If others feel strongly that it >isn't, then the onus is on them to choose a specific alternative and >argue as to why it is more appropriate. Nothing along this line has >occurred. > >~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
