Hi Amit, On 06/08/14 12:35, Amit Kucheria wrote: > 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. >
So, I'd say we wait for the actual review process to happen when feasible anyway. Thanks, - Juri >> 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
