On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:38:02PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 22:49, Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > I find it hard to judge precisely how much of a third-party some of > > these are. I remember Philippe mentioning that one of them, I guess > > the images used on linux_ssh_mips_malta.py, were "as official as it > > gets" (my words, from my often misleading memory). > > > > Reproducibility is definitely an issue, in the sense given that some > > of these can indeed go away, but as long as they're available the hash > > recorded in the test should guarantee that we're running the same > > images. > > > > Do you think we should do something different here? > > I'm not sure, which is why I asked whether this new test > was in line with what we've done previously. Since these > are just test cases and we don't redistribute them to > other people there's less of a traceability/reproducibility > worry, and if we check hashes on download that cuts off > a lot of "fail to notice if the image changes for some > reason" possible problems. > > thanks > -- PMM >
Yep, because I have no clue how to do improve on this (redistributing the binaries is definitely not on the improvement side, and neither is not testing some machine types), the current approach seems good. Thanks for checking in and giving feedback! - Cleber.
