Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH OSSTEST v5 00/24] add distro domU testing flight

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 17:06 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH OSSTEST v5 00/24] add distro domU 
> testing flight"):
> > As last time there are some patches in here which I think will be useful
> > to the Intel folks doing the nested virt testing, specifically the
> > refactoring of how overlays and ssh host keys are done will be useful
> > for installing a guest to be treated as the L1 host. (Note that this has
> > changed a bit, again, since last time)
> 
> I think I have reviewed all of those now.

Thanks!

I think you have acked all of the ones I identified as being an
initially commitable chunk except one "TestSupport: Add helper to fetch
a URL on a host" which I think is not used by the nested virt series and
so can wait.

Assuming that turns out to be the case are you OK with me pushing that
subset to pretest?

> > When I originally started this work I envisioned a flight running on the
> > main production instance (in Cambridge at the time). Now that we have
> > the new colo I would still consider that the main production instance is
> > the best home, however given the new colo is not yet up to full capacity
> > we could also consider running this flight in Cambridge for the time
> > being. What do you think?
> 
> I think we should use the resources we have available, and that
> includes the Cambridge instance (which is hopefully less broken now).
> Until the Xen Project colo instance is _much_ bigger than Cambridge, I
> think we should run it here in Cambridge.

OK, will do. Should I arrange for reports to go to xen-devel even though
logs will only be available internally?

> > Also when running the adhoc tests the sheer number of jobs which are
> > involved (with my hope there will be more in the future as other distros
> > get in on the act) I was considering splitting it into multiple
> > distros-debian-{squeeze,wheezy,jessie,sid,daily} flights. Thoughts?
> 
> As discussed, we think this is a good idea.  In particular, it would
> allow running stable releases less often.  (As a result, this will
> produce a whole lot of distros-<distro>-<revision> flights.)

Correct, I'll refactor along those lines.

Ian.


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