lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: futex(2) man page update help request
    From
    On 5/15/14, 9:30, "chrubis@suse.cz" <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:

    >Hi!
    >> I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some
    >> advantage to keeping futextest independent.
    >
    >What advantages did you have in mind?

    Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-)

    OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here... But since you asked, back in
    '09 LTP had some test quality issues and I felt I could maintain futextest
    to a higher bar independently.

    >
    >> Perhaps things have changed enough since then (~2009 era) that we
    >> should reconsider.
    >
    >I've been working on LTP for a about three years now and we happen to do
    >quite a lot in that time. The most visible changes would be more proper
    >development practices (git, proper build system, code review, LKML
    >coding style, documentation, ...) and also huge number of fixes. Now we
    >are trying to catch up in coverage too.
    >
    >> We can discuss the pros/cons there if you like.
    >
    >I would love to :).

    Does LTP need to own the code, or can it incorporate existing projects and
    a sort of aggregator?

    How much LTP harness type code needs to be used?

    --
    Darren Hart Open Source Technology Center
    darren.hart@intel.com Intel Corporation





    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-05-15 21:01    [W:2.285 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site