On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:14 PM Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> On 21/05/2021 16.29, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 15:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
> > wrote:
> >> If you think these tests belong to tests/tcg/, I am OK to put
> >> them they, but I don't think adding the Avocado buildsys
>
On 5/21/21 7:14 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 21/05/2021 16.29, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 15:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
>> wrote:
>>> If you think these tests belong to tests/tcg/, I am OK to put
>>> them they, but I don't think adding the Avocado buildsys
>>> machinery to the
On 21/05/2021 16.29, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 15:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
If you think these tests belong to tests/tcg/, I am OK to put
them they, but I don't think adding the Avocado buildsys
machinery to the already-complex tests/tcg/ Makefiles is going
to help
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:23 PM Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 16:13, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:29 AM Peter Maydell
> > wrote:
> > > This does raise the question of what we're actually trying
> > > to distinguish. It seems to me somewhat that what
On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 16:13, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:29 AM Peter Maydell
> wrote:
> > This does raise the question of what we're actually trying
> > to distinguish. It seems to me somewhat that what tests/acceptance/
> > actually contains that makes it
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:29 AM Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 15:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > If you think these tests belong to tests/tcg/, I am OK to put
> > them they, but I don't think adding the Avocado buildsys
> > machinery to the already-complex tests/tcg/
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:29 AM Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 15:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > If you think these tests belong to tests/tcg/, I am OK to put
> > them they, but I don't think adding the Avocado buildsys
> > machinery to the already-complex tests/tcg/
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 5/21/21 3:03 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
>>> On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 5/20/21
On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 15:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> If you think these tests belong to tests/tcg/, I am OK to put
> them they, but I don't think adding the Avocado buildsys
> machinery to the already-complex tests/tcg/ Makefiles is going
> to help us...
This does raise the question of
On 5/21/21 3:03 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
>> On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth wrote:
On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
>>
Thomas Huth writes:
> On 21/05/2021 14.28, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth wrote:
> [...]
>>> Alternatively, what about renaming the "acceptance" tests to "validation"
>>> instead? That word does not have a duplicated definition in the context of
>>>
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
> Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a
On 5/21/21 2:42 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 21/05/2021 14.28, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth wrote:
> [...]
>>> Alternatively, what about renaming the "acceptance" tests to
>>> "validation"
>>> instead? That word does not have a duplicated definition in the
On 21/05/2021 14.28, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth wrote:
[...]
Alternatively, what about renaming the "acceptance" tests to "validation"
instead? That word does not have a duplicated definition in the context of
QEMU yet, so I think it would be less
On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth wrote:
>>
>> On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests
conducted by
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
> >> Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests
> >> conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:28 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
wrote:
>
> On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
> > Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests
> > conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product errors before
> > accepting the software from
On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests
conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product errors before
accepting the software from the developer. Conducted by
On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
> Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests
> conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product errors before
> accepting the software from the developer. Conducted by the end-user rather
> than software engineers,
Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests
conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product errors before
accepting the software from the developer. Conducted by the end-user rather
than software engineers, acceptance testing can range from an informal
“test
20 matches
Mail list logo
