On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:22:20AM +0800, wenchao xia wrote: > 于 2012-4-27 5:13, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden 写道: > >On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:11:49AM -0500, Adam Litke wrote: > >>On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:12:06PM +0800, Shu Ming wrote: > >>>One more comment about the test package version. Most likely, the > >>>package version will be the same version as the VDSM package > >>>version. The rule we need to consider is: Should we keep the back > >>>compatibility with the VDSM files? Say allow newer version test > >>>package running on older VDSM files? Or just allow run the same > >>>version of test package and VDSM package.One more comment about the > >>>test package version. Most likely, the package version will be the > >>>same version as the VDSM package version. The rule we need to > >>>consider is: Should we keep the back compatibility with the VDSM > >>>files? Say allow newer version test package running on older VDSM > >>>files? Or just allow run the same version of test package and VDSM > >>>package. > >> > >>Backwards-compatible tests is not a good idea in my opinion. I would say > >>that > >>the test rpm should require the exact same vdsm version. > >+1 > I guess it is the advantage to place test project inside vdsm project, > they have major version synchronized always. User could get an older > version with git reset.
That's obviously simpler, and probably a good start. As the project matures, it might become useful to see if an old vdsm satisfies newly-written tests, and someone may find it useful to test a remote vdsm. We can reconsider after we have "verfication tests". _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list email@example.com https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel