Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 May 2014 11:17:36 -0700 | Subject | Re: futex(2) man page update help request | From | Darren Hart <> |
| |
On 5/15/14, 9:30, "chrubis@suse.cz" <chrubis@suse.cz> 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@intel.com Intel Corporation
| |