On 5/15/14, 9:30, "chrubis@xxxxxxx" <chrubis@xxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi! >> I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some >> advantage to keeping futextest independent. > >What advantages did you have in mind? Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-) OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here... But since you asked, back in '09 LTP had some test quality issues and I felt I could maintain futextest to a higher bar independently. > >> Perhaps things have changed enough since then (~2009 era) that we >> should reconsider. > >I've been working on LTP for a about three years now and we happen to do >quite a lot in that time. The most visible changes would be more proper >development practices (git, proper build system, code review, LKML >coding style, documentation, ...) and also huge number of fixes. Now we >are trying to catch up in coverage too. > >> We can discuss the pros/cons there if you like. > >I would love to :). Does LTP need to own the code, or can it incorporate existing projects and a sort of aggregator? How much LTP harness type code needs to be used? -- Darren Hart Open Source Technology Center darren.hart@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
