linaro-infrastructure-stakeholders team mailing list archive

[Mattias Backman <mattias.backman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:48 PM, James Westby <james.westby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:31:49 +1200, Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It's a good idea, but I'm not sure there's all that much work that can
>> be done on it until LAVA is a bit more up and running is there?
>
> Nope, likely not. That's the tyranny of workitems though, you open your
> mouth and you get a workitem and then you have to send the email :-)
>
> Though it is useful to have a discussion around the feasibility of using
> test cases as one of the arbiters of whether a blueprint is complete at
> this time I think.

I like it, since having tests defined early would clarify what the
purpose of the BP is for everyone involved. That is, it takes care of
the "How to demo" part and lets the implementor know when the work is
done and lets stakeholders know exactly what they can expect from the
BP.

What I like even more is that it creates an implicit requirement for
creating validation tests. I've seen examples of promising LAVA-like
systems that perhaps didn't provide optimum value as the tests where
mostly device booting with little benchmarking and even less
functional testing.

Thanks,

Mattias