Re: A new name for kvm-unit-tests ?

From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
	Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>, Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: A new name for kvm-unit-tests ?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:13:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANRm+Czsb79JYAHcOm49tg=M2vHdOzh_XFaEcSS_RUPfX3dRuw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c8e83bff-1762-f719-924f-618bd29e7894@redhat.com>

On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 15:10, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 30.07.20 08:38, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 30.07.20 07:41, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >>
> >>  Hi all,
> >>
> >> since Paolo recently suggested to decrease the bus factor for
> >> kvm-unit-tests [1], I suggested (in a private mail) to maybe also move
> >> the repo to one of the git forges where we could benefit from a CI
> >
> > ack.
> >
> >> system (so that we do not merge bugs so often anymore as it happened in
> >> the previous months). If we do that step, that might be a good point in
> >> time to rename the kvm-unit-tests to something more adequate. "Why?" you
> >> might ask ... well, the unit tests are not only useful for kvm anymore:
> >
> > I personally dislike renames as you will have old references lurking in
> > the internet for decades. A rename will result in people continue to using
> > the old code because the old name is the only thing that they know.
> >
> > [...]
> >> Maybe we should come up with a more fancy name for the test suite? For
> >> example something like "HECATE" - "*H*ypervisor *E*xecution and *C*pu
> >> instruction *A*dvanced *T*est *E*nvironment" (and Hecate is also the
> >> goddess of boundaries - which you could translate to the hypervisor
> >> being the boundary between the virtual and real machine ... with a
> >> little bit of imagination, of course) ... well, yeah, that's just what
> >> came to my mind so far, of course. Let's brainstorm ... do you have any
> >> good ideas for a new name of the kvm-unit-tests? Or do you love the old
> >> name and think it should stay? Or do you think cpu-unit-tests would be
> >> the best fit? Please let us know!
> >
> > If we rename than hecate or cpu-unit-tests is fine for me, but I prefer
> > to keep the old name.
>
> +1 for keeping the old name.
>
> cpu-unit-tests might also not be completely fitting (I remember we
> already do test, or will test in the future I/O stuff like PCI, CCW, ...).
>
> IMHO, It's much more a collection of tests to verify
> architecture/standard/whatever compliance (including paravirtualized
> interfaces if available).

Vote for keeping the old name.

    Wanpeng