From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37872) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S61Zz-0005sl-PK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:18:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S61Zq-0001pw-Ra for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:18:03 -0500 Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]:55451) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S61Zq-0001pg-DH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:17:54 -0500 Received: by lahe6 with SMTP id e6so1873239lah.4 for ; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:17:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <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> <20120309150122.GA10949@t420s.optimusnet> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:17:51 +0000 Message-ID: From: Stefan Hajnoczi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: Ademar Reis Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Scott Zawalski , QEMU devel , Anthony Liguori , Cleber Rosa On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ademar Reis wrote: > 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 wrote= : >> >> > 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 wrote= : >> >> >> >>>>On 03/08/2012 11:59 AM, Ademar Reis wrote: >> >> >> >>> =A0 - QE will be alienated from the qemu test effort. There wi= ll be >> >> >> >>> =A0 =A0 no integration between the QE efforts and the maintena= nce 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 n= ot >> >> >> >>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 tests >> >> >> >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 s= o >> >> >> 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 b= ut >> >> we test different things and have different priorities. >> >> >> >> For me this has been the big realization from this discussion. =A0I f= elt >> >> kvm-autotest and qemu should share tests. =A0I was pushing for that b= ut >> >> 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. >> >> I don't understand this last paragraph. =A0If 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. >> > > 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. I agree that engineers are needed to work on testing as testing increases upstream. Stefan