Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST] Add a flight to test qemu.org's ("mainline") master branch.

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("[OSSTEST] Add a flight to test qemu.org's ("mainline") 
master branch."):
> I did consider causing make-flight:job_create_test_filter_callback
> to omit any test which didn't use qemuu but I decided not to because
> it is used for PV qdisk backends too. (and now I'm wondering why the
> same doesn't apply to the qemu-upstream flights too)

Thinking about this since my last message, it occurs to me that it
isn't in general easy for make-flight to know when qemuu is going to
be used.  After all xl may decide on a whim to change which qemu it
uses for complicated reasons.  I'm not really sure where that thought
is leading.

> I'm not sure what to call the output of the push gate on xenbits to
> be not confusing, git://xenbits.xen.org/osstest/qemu.git is a
> placeholder. The XXX should be removed before committing. I wondered
> about suggesting moving all of the push gates which aren't actually
> intended for end user consumption (but rather for osstest
> book-keeping) under e.g.  git://xenbits.xen.org/osstest-gated, that
> would be the libvirt tree, the linux trees which linux-linus and
> linux-next push to, this new tree, perhaps others.

There are big git performance advantages to having all of these things
be refs in the same git tree as the non-osstest-related branches for
whatever it is.

And I'm not sure it's right to say these aren't "for end user
consumption".  I don't see why someone couldn't use one of our tested
branches if they felt like it.  Of course some of them are better than
others and they aren't very well documented.

The arrangement with the zillions of qemu trees on xenbits is
anomalous (and should probably go away eventually).

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel