Re: [LTP] A note from Maintainer

[Garrett C. <yan...@gm...>]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Rishikesh K Rajak
<ris...@li...> wrote:
> Welcome to ltp community.
>
> We are in process of changing our sf.net host repository to
> GIT from CVS.[ Any input/discussion on this is highly appreciable ]. If
> possible this month end release may get delayed based on responses from
> list or next month end (i.e: March ) release will be based on git tree.
>
> I usually try to read all patches posted to ltp mailing list, and follow
> almost all discussions on list, unless the topic is about an obscure
> corner that i do not personally use. But i am obviously not perfect.If
> you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for three days,
> that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the floor --- please
> do not hesitate to remind me.
>
> The list archive is available at:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=ltp-list&r=1&w=2
>
>
> Please use this public site to point out messages in mailing list if you
> want to remind someone or again start same thread without altering
> subject line.
>
> Now coming to git transformation this month, you can find gitweb
> interface at :
>
> http://ltp.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ltp/ltp-dev.git;a=summary
>
> There are four branches in ltp-dev.git repository that track the source tree
> of ltp: "master", "maint", "next", "pu". I may add more maintanance
> branch if we have huge backward of incompatible feature updates in the
> future to keep an older release alive.
>
> The master branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
> ready to be used in production environment. There could occassionaly be
> minor breakage but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
> importantly those will be quickly and trivially fixable.
>
> So if some hotfixes has gone with this branch, you can find one more
> digit has been added to version release (e.g: YYYYMMDD.1 ), So it means
> it is more stable than YYYYMMDD release. I may be changing this format
> if i can see a better format or if you have some suggestion then it is
> most welcome.
>
> The "maint" branch is called one step before master branch, which will
> contain all features or patches that are going to following month end
> release.
> (e.g: If this month end ltp-full-YYYYMMDD is going be to released
> then all the stable patches you can find in this branch through out the
> month, and one important point for this branch is all the patches which
> has gone to this branch will be well tested and make sure that there is
> no regression or breakage and Acked/Reviewed by Someone from mailing
> list.)
>
> "next" branch will contain all the patches which has been sent on
> ltp-mailing list after getting "Acked-By" and/or "Reviewed-By" anyone
> from list. This branch is quite unstable but user can find their
> immediate patches over here to see the stability.You can find most
> unstable about this branch w.r.t feature wise or may be sometime build wise.
>
>
> NOTE:
> =====
> So i always encourage testcase developer/ltp-list member to send me the
> patches against this branch. And it will be closely reviewed and
> acknowledged by any member from ltp-list community members. Once it gets
> Acked/Reveiwed-By then it will promoted to maint branch for maintainer
> testing and checking for stability, otherwise it will go to "pu" branch
> for further discussion and decision. These pending patch can be worked
> on following month and once it is mature enough to meet the stability
> then it can be directly jump to maint branch, here i may ask the
> submitter to submit the patch once again against maint branch.
>
> "pu" branch is basically "proposed update" branch which will contain all
> the remainder of above branches. By the above definition of how "next"
> works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
> obviosuly broken stuff.
>
> I would like to thanks everybody who helped me to release ltp-dev git into
> current shape. Especially i would like to thank following:
>    - git.git from where actually i picked up this branch
>      identification.
>    - Garret, who has worked with me step by step to release this git
>      tree implementation to ltp-list@.
>    - All my team member from IBM who basically gave encourageable
>      input and specially Aneesh, Subrata, Iranna & kamalesh.
>    - And finally to Linux kernel, who motivated me to maintain such a
>      testsuits with git.
>
> This Maintainer Note will be available under doc/MaintNotes of
> month end release.
>
>
> Usage:
>
> #git clone git://ltp.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/ltp/ltp-dev.git ltp-dev
> (Make sure you have the latest autoconf/automake before running make
> autotools )
> #make autotools
> #./configure
> #make
> #make install
> #cd /opt/ltp
> #./runltp
>
> Please do not hesitate to reply this mail if you have any query in your
> mind, it may help me to generate a good FAQ :) .

Hello all,
    I highly encourage folks to also use the testscripts/build scripts
as well [as I have in the past] before submitting patches back to us,
so that you can test out the three identified build and test
scenarios:

1. install-in-build-tree
2. install-out-of-build-tree
3. [build and install] out-of-build-tree

    Please read the README before executing the scripts though (in the
same directory).
    I request that folks run these scripts periodically (say once a
month, or bi-monthly) using different distros so that we can establish
a gauge for how stable things are across the board, as opposed to
having an unrealistic view of how Fedora 12~ish, Gentoo Linux, RHEL [,
SuSe?, and Ubuntu?] are faring, especially because the project in and
of itself is complex, as-is the amount of code and flux that occurs
due to package versioning of the underlying software between releases
(a new API gets added, and there's a certain degree of lag between
when the system headers get updated and the glibc headers get updated
to accommodate the new API, etc, etc).
    Much appreciated as always, and I have a good feeling that the
project is starting to reach a good equilibrium state again, like it
was pre-October '09 when I committed the Makefile infrastructure
changes.
Happy testing as always :),
-Garrett