On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:54:23PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Ademar Reis <ar...@redhat.com> 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 <ar...@redhat.com> 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: > >> >> >>> - QE will be alienated from the qemu test effort. There will be > >> >> >>> no integration between the QE efforts and the maintenance of > >> >> >>> the qemu developer-level tests. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>I think we're a pretty friendly and open community :-) There 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 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. If the primary reason for libautotest is so > >> >> the people writing tests for QEMU can avoid actually working with > >> >> the developers of QEMU... we'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 > >> > getting involved in autotest, which is a complex QE project > >> > (I heard this numerous times). > >> > > >> > - As a Quality Engineer, I don't want to invest my time learning > >> > and 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. Both communities do testing but > >> we test different things and have different priorities. > >> > >> For me this has been the big realization from this discussion. I felt > >> kvm-autotest and qemu should share tests. I 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. (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. 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. >
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. -- Ademar de Souza Reis Jr. Red Hat ^[:wq!
