On 30.07.20 08:38, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 30.07.20 07:41, Thomas Huth wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> since Paolo recently suggested to decrease the bus factor for >> kvm-unit-tests [1], I suggested (in a private mail) to maybe also move >> the repo to one of the git forges where we could benefit from a CI > > ack. > >> system (so that we do not merge bugs so often anymore as it happened in >> the previous months). If we do that step, that might be a good point in >> time to rename the kvm-unit-tests to something more adequate. "Why?" you >> might ask ... well, the unit tests are not only useful for kvm anymore: > > I personally dislike renames as you will have old references lurking in > the internet for decades. A rename will result in people continue to using > the old code because the old name is the only thing that they know. > > [...] >> Maybe we should come up with a more fancy name for the test suite? For >> example something like "HECATE" - "*H*ypervisor *E*xecution and *C*pu >> instruction *A*dvanced *T*est *E*nvironment" (and Hecate is also the >> goddess of boundaries - which you could translate to the hypervisor >> being the boundary between the virtual and real machine ... with a >> little bit of imagination, of course) ... well, yeah, that's just what >> came to my mind so far, of course. Let's brainstorm ... do you have any >> good ideas for a new name of the kvm-unit-tests? Or do you love the old >> name and think it should stay? Or do you think cpu-unit-tests would be >> the best fit? Please let us know! > > If we rename than hecate or cpu-unit-tests is fine for me, but I prefer > to keep the old name. +1 for keeping the old name. cpu-unit-tests might also not be completely fitting (I remember we already do test, or will test in the future I/O stuff like PCI, CCW, ...). IMHO, It's much more a collection of tests to verify architecture/standard/whatever compliance (including paravirtualized interfaces if available). -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
