On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 11:43 +0800, Yolkfull Chow wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 02:04:09PM -0200, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > > Yolkfull, I am copying Michael and Lawrence on the e-mail so they can > > comment on the points I am going to present. > > Lucas, firstly thank you very much for addressing your viewpoints and the > coding/logical suggestions. Most of them are reasonable and appreciated > except that I also have an improvidence about point 3): > > Your idea on executing image_copy as a backup of unattended_install is good. > But I think we could also seperate 'unattended_install' from test set of > "functional testing" and encapsulate it into "Installation testing" set. > In this way the following functional test cases will not be affected by > failed installation tests. > > What do you think about this? I believe this could be implemented by simply removing the dependency. However, if *no* install test succeed whatsoever, then we don't have any way to perform the subsequent tests. So I don't know how to implement this idea. Please explain me how that encapsulation would work. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
