From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mumv3-0007i7-EC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:44:01 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mumuy-0007f2-L7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:44:00 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49130 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mumuy-0007ez-Gu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:43:56 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17594) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mumux-0004jl-06 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:43:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:43:21 -0300 From: Luiz Capitulino Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0 Message-ID: <20091005094321.305e1876@doriath> In-Reply-To: <4AC721C9.5030006@redhat.com> References: <4AC29E4D.80707@us.ibm.com> <4AC2FD93.80208@redhat.com> <4AC3578C.8070105@us.ibm.com> <20091001181338.0007a1fc@doriath> <4AC721C9.5030006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Anthony Liguori , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , kvm-devel , Paul Brook On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:04:57 +0200 Avi Kivity wrote: > On 10/01/2009 11:13 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >> If we're going to support the protocol for 0.12, I'd like to most of the > >> code merged by the end of October. > >> > > Four weeks.. Not so much time, but let's try. > > > > There are two major issues that may delay QMP. > > > > Firstly, we are still on the infrastructure/design phase, which > > is natural to take time. Maybe when handlers start getting converted > > en masse things will be faster. > > > > I sure hope so. Maybe someone can pitch in if not. I've written a TODO list if someone is willing to help: http://tinyurl.com/ya7l6bo > > Secondly: testing. I have a very ugly python script to test the > > already converted handlers. The problem is not only the ugliness, > > the right way to do this would be to use kvm-autotest. So, I was > > planning to take a detailed look at it and perhaps start writing > > tests for QMP right when each handler is converted. Right Thing, > > but takes time. > > > > I think this could be done by having autotest use two monitors, one with > the machine protocol and one with the human protocol, trying first the > machine protocol and falling back if the command is not supported. Yes, sounds a good idea. > Hopefully we can get the autotest people to work on it so we parallelize > development. They'll also give user-oriented feedback which can be > valuable. I will talk to them about that. > Are you using a standard json parser with your test script? That's an > additional validation. I'm using Python's json module, but I could run one of the checkers listed in the json's page for each test, before the Python's module kicks in.