pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions

To: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions
From: Martin Hicks <mort@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 08:25:24 -0500
Cc: Kevin Wang <kjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1233628500.5518.60.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1233627045.5518.55.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090203022340.GA16399@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1233628500.5518.60.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:35:00PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:23 -0800, Kevin Wang wrote:
> > From Nathan Scott:
> > > - move pcpqa tree contents (back) into "qa" subdirectory in the
> > > pcp-collector git tree, so its clear what that is for.  kmchart
> > > (aka pcp-monitor) already has a "qa" subdirectory.
> > 
> > Not knowing what's in there, I ask naievely:  why not 'test' or 'tests'?
> 
> Why indeed.  No reason I know of, QA (quality assurance) was
> the term used for testing on the pcp project from day 1 ....
> blame Ken, I guess.  I could go with "tests" ... may make it
> easier to merge, back at the SGI ptools ranch - Mort?

Nathan,

You and I had already talked on IRC about many of these points.  I
think we're in agreement on all the other points.

I'm not convinced that moving pcpqa back into the PCP tree is a good
idea.  I took a quick look this week at using the pcpqa stuff this week
and it is much more involved than a simple test suite run on a single or
a couple machines.  I would think that the most common use for the qa
(or test) directory would be to scp it to the test machine.  It doesn't
have any build-time tests, rather it is to be used on a machine that is
running PCP already.

mh

-- 
Martin Hicks || mort@xxxxxxxx || PGP/GnuPG: 0x4C7F2BEE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>