From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1brnte-00063V-CG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 11:14:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1brntc-00079N-6C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 11:14:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:14:04 -0400 (EDT) From: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau Message-ID: <777361253.639586.1475680444331.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87lgy2rhc1.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> References: <20160922203927.28241-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <20160922203927.28241-4-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <8760p7yv8n.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <934105962.522999.1475662607447.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <87bmyzvuqn.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <1233045948.581343.1475672578009.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <87lgy2rhc1.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 3/3] tests: start generic qemu-qmp tests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , paolo bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org Hi ----- Original Message ----- > Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau writes: >=20 > > Hi > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > -snip- > > > >>=20 > >> I'd be willing to take this as is with a suitable TODO comment > >> explaining where we want to go with this file. Perhaps > >>=20 > >> /* > >> * This program tests QMP commands that aren't interesting enough to > >> * warrant their own test program. > >> * > >> * TODO The tests we got here now aren't good examples, because they > >> * don't really exercise the commands, but only demonstrate specific > >> * bugs we've fixed. > >> */ > >>=20 > >> What do you think? > > > > It looks like a comment that may stale. I have a few tests in some wip > > branch that will go naturally there, so I hope it won't remain bug-fix > > only checks. I can't say how long it will take to get there though, so = I > > am fine with a comment anyway, perhaps without TODO? > > > > thanks >=20 > Since you got more tests coming up, we have several workable options: >=20 > (1) Delay this patch until we got more substantial tests. I'm wary of > rejecting the imperfect solution I can have now for a better > solution I might get some day, but since you already got something > better in the pipeline, I'd be happy to wait in this case. >=20 > (2) Apply it now, with my TODO. Adding tests should eventually resolve > the TODO. If we forget to delete it then, it'll go stale. But > it'll be pretty obviously stale. >=20 > (3) Apply it now, without my TODO. Until we acquire tests that would > resolve the TODO, the file is an unmarked bad example. >=20 > I like (1) better than (2), because it's less churn, and I don't expect > to lose anything. (3) my least favourite option, because I prefer maybe > having an obviously stale TODO in the future over having an umarked bad > example now. Please go for 2, the other series is unrelated and I don't know when I am g= oing to send it. thanks