Just a note to chime in specifically on Mynewt. The simulated tests are very low overhead, its a single process that requires a virtual timer (i.e. elapsed runtime from OS scheduler vs real time) at a 1ms tick.
There is no requirement to have physical hardware testing within the ASF project itself. For the platforms we're concerned about at runtime, we're hosting all the physical hardware and automated regression tests locally. I think that some company (or set of companies) will always do this, because of the physical space constraints. Additionally committers / users will have their own hardware platforms to vett releases and catch-errors. Sterling PS: This thread has a bit more info: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201510.mbox/%3CCAFm0b3r_z3RfEs3DGOAaHst4Lpw%2BCXHwMhxd6H9Gar2_HpMZdg%40mail.gmail.com%3E On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not >> enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about >> what expectations we're setting, etc. > > > While I don’t know the exact answer and can;t speak for the project. I don’t > see too much of an issue here as I assume testing can be done via simulation > (and not on the target platforms) on currently available infrastructure. PPMC > members or interested committers / users are likely to have their own > hardware to validate releases and that hardware is of reasonably low cost > ($20-$50 for a development board). > > Thanks, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
