Re: futex(2) man page update help request

On 5/15/14, 9:30, "chrubis-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org" [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi!

quoted

I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some
advantage to keeping futextest independent.

What advantages did you have in mind?

Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-)

OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here... But since you asked, back in
'09 LTP had some test quality issues and I felt I could maintain futextest
to a higher bar independently.

quoted

Perhaps things have changed enough since then (~2009 era) that we
should reconsider.

I've been working on LTP for a about three years now and we happen to do
quite a lot in that time. The most visible changes would be more proper
development practices (git, proper build system, code review, LKML
coding style, documentation, ...) and also huge number of fixes. Now we
are trying to catch up in coverage too.

quoted

We can discuss the pros/cons there if you like.

I would love to :).

Does LTP need to own the code, or can it incorporate existing projects and
a sort of aggregator?

How much LTP harness type code needs to be used?

-- 
Darren Hart					Open Source Technology Center
darren.hart-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org				            Intel Corporation



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html