Zygmunt Krynicki <[email protected]> writes: > W dniu 19.10.2012 02:03, Michael Hudson-Doyle pisze: > >>> Still, I'd like to keep this separate but open for discussion. Do you >>> think you would consider working on a non-lava-specific test repository >>> during the next cycle? If so then I would gladly move the spec to the >>> test case management wiki that mwhudson created. >> >> I think it depends on the nature of the solution. If the solution >> mostly consists of a protocol definition, I would think that the lava >> test repository would probably be a part of the same lava server >> process/database we already have. But not completely sure. > > As for using or not using lava-server for this: I'm almost sure you'd > need a part in lava-server to solve your goals but it does not exclude a > third party system that can be shared by others. I think that a > successful, pypi-like (single archive) test definition repository cannot > depend on the existing lava infrastructure but I'm open to > counter-arguments.
If we go for a single archive solution then I don't think it would make sense to use the lava infrastructure. (It's actually tempting to use this as a learn-mongodb project, but we probably shouldn't do that either :-p). Cheers, mwh _______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
