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
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

Reply via email to