From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41981) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S61K9-00084n-Sb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:01:47 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S61K2-0006rp-I4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:01:41 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32275) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S61K2-0006rk-A3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:01:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:01:22 -0300 From: Ademar Reis Message-ID: <20120309150122.GA10949@t420s.optimusnet> References: <20120308175907.GA4900@t420s.optimusnet> <4F5905AA.3060304@codemonkey.ws> <20120308210209.GA11998@t420s.optimusnet> <4F59237F.6010406@codemonkey.ws> <20120308222433.GB11998@t420s.optimusnet> <4F593F08.8050606@codemonkey.ws> <20120308235101.GA24883@t420s.optimusnet> <20120309140004.GA3769@t420s.optimusnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Future goals for autotest and virtualization tests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Scott Zawalski , QEMU devel , Anthony Liguori , Cleber Rosa On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:54:23PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Ademar Reis wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:41:05AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Ademar Reis wrot= e: > >> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> >> On 03/08/2012 04:24 PM, Ademar Reis wrote: > >> >> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:24:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> >> >>On 03/08/2012 03:02 PM, Ademar Reis wrote: > >> >> >>>On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:16:58PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrot= e: > >> >> >>>>On 03/08/2012 11:59 AM, Ademar Reis wrote: > >> >> >>> =A0 - QE will be alienated from the qemu test effort. There w= ill be > >> >> >>> =A0 =A0 no integration between the QE efforts and the mainten= ance of > >> >> >>> =A0 =A0 the qemu developer-level tests. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>I think we're a pretty friendly and open community :-) =A0There= is no > >> >> >>reason that QE should be "alienated" unless folks are choosing = not > >> >> >>to participate upstream. > >> >> > > >> >> >For the exact same reasons you as a developer don't want to > >> >> >implement tests inside autotest, QE won't want to implement test= s > >> >> >for qemu.git. It's out of their comfort zone, just put yourself > >> >> >on their shoes. > >> >> > >> >> This is a really, really poor argument and I hope I don't need to= go > >> >> into details of why. =A0If the primary reason for libautotest is = so > >> >> the people writing tests for QEMU can avoid actually working with > >> >> the developers of QEMU... =A0we've got a problem. > >> > > >> > No, one of the benefits of having libautotest is to *collaborate* > >> > with QE. I'll explain again: > >> > > >> > - As a qemu developer, I don't want to spend my time learning and > >> > =A0getting involved in autotest, which is a complex QE project > >> > =A0(I heard this numerous times). > >> > > >> > - As a Quality Engineer, I don't want to invest my time learning > >> > =A0and getting involved into upstream qemu to test HEAD. > >> > >> I think this is the key point of the whole discussion - most of the > >> other topics have been distractions. =A0Both communities do testing = but > >> we test different things and have different priorities. > >> > >> For me this has been the big realization from this discussion. =A0I = felt > >> kvm-autotest and qemu should share tests. =A0I was pushing for that = but > >> after following this thread I don't think it makes sense, here's why= : > >> > >> The Quality Engineer you describe is not a QEMU upstream QE, instead > >> the QE has a broader and more downstream focus. =A0(This is why > >> comparisons with WebKit or other upstream projects doing testing are > >> not valid comparisons.) > > > > Lucas, Cleber and the others red-hatters should remembers this > > from my internal presentation, it was the first point I made: > > QE and Developers have very different goals and interests. > > > > Which is why we're pushing all these changes in autotest. We see > > opportunities for collaboration, but we do realize the difference. > > > > And look: Lucas and Cleber are not QE, they're developers working > > on the autotest framework/library/whatever. We'll need similar > > positions inside qemu as the test infra-structure grows. >=20 > I don't understand this last paragraph. If qemu.git upstream was > doing full-scale QE it would work fine because the differences that > I've described and you also have pointed out would be absent. >=20 In order to have QEMU working in full "TDD Mode" (a current goal), I predict developers assigned to the maintenance of the in-house test infrastructure (qemu-test) will be needed, on positions similar to what Lucas and Cleber currently do with autotest. Only time will tell. --=20 Ademar de Souza Reis Jr. Red Hat ^[:wq!