Hi Juri, On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > I'm actually adding Chris to Cc: as he is also part of the > original discussion about rt-app. > > On 05/08/14 22:45, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> Hi Juri, >> >> Here is the pull request for the changes that create a workload generator >> tool >> >> Regards, >> >> The following changes since commit 17be4548c4260b80be623e0e1317e98a770dea7a: >> >> copyright added (2014-04-11 09:28:27 +0200) >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> >> git://git.linaro.org/power/rt-app.git master >> >> for you to fetch changes up to 8cbaad65d00e3c64c4f941139bc11f4d07822474: >> >> add a web browsing use case (2014-08-01 15:43:47 +0200) > > Thanks for sharing changes in your repository, but IMHO it is > somewhat difficult to review them in this form, as behavioural > changes are intermixed with small fixes. Also, it would be good > if we can integrate changes keeping git history clean. Ideally > we could introduce functional changes followed by (or together > with) examples showing what feature the change introduces. I > know that this is time consuming, so I'm actually asking if you > think you have some time to work on rearranging things.
Vincent is on vacations until the end of the month. After that, I expect he'll be busy with Linaro Connect preparations. Yes, the timing of all this sucks given that we want to announce the tools this week to give 2 weeks of lead time before Kernel Summit. > Having a proper history could also ease review. I'd say we could > try two different methods. I created a GitHub organization that > now hosts the rt-app repo: https://github.com/scheduler-tools/rt-app. > I also created a branch for the original version of the tool so that > we can integrate changes on master. > > Method 1) We use GitHub pull request feature to discuss changes and > finally integrate them. > > Method 2) You post the patchset (based on master) on linaro-dev > mailing list, discussion happens on the mailing list > (everybody can participate), after discussion I apply > patches resulting from discussion on master. > > I'd personally prefer method 2 as it is simpler and can probably get > contributions from a wider audience. What other thinks? I prefer Method 2 myself but it is going to be hard to get anything refactored until late September. > We also said that the name of the tool could be changed, any opinions > on this? Something like workload-gen or wload-gen ? IMHO, the name change is just a nice to have and not critical to the success of this project. Regards, Amit _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
