Talk:Guest Support Status: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(comment on talk page) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I don't like the status-page. At the moment it's only a very long list and not very informative. For example, there is no timestamp, sometimes no author of an entry. There is no hint to the testset. No kernel-version, only the kvm-version. And so on. I think we've to rework this site. We've to do system-tests with every new release of the kvm on a set of linux-kernels and cpus. There is a nice set of tests with the KVM-Autotest-Suite... I hope someone is reading here, so that we can start a disucssion about this topic :) --[[User:Cberendt|Cberendt]] 17:28, 9 May 2009 (EDT) | I don't like the status-page. At the moment it's only a very long list and not very informative. For example, there is no timestamp, sometimes no author of an entry. There is no hint to the testset. No kernel-version, only the kvm-version. And so on. I think we've to rework this site. We've to do system-tests with every new release of the kvm on a set of linux-kernels and cpus. There is a nice set of tests with the KVM-Autotest-Suite... I hope someone is reading here, so that we can start a disucssion about this topic :) --[[User:Cberendt|Cberendt]] 17:28, 9 May 2009 (EDT) | ||
I agree with your assessment. I have recently looked at this page and felt that it was a bit overwhelming to get good information from and also know that it probably can easily get out of date, since the people that can help improve it might feel that it is not worth it. Maybe you could suggest a new breakdown, maybe some helpful categories, an approach to get to cleaner, more organized tables? It would be nice to be able to know that a particular guest works on various kvm versions (or not) and scenarios, and, as you mentioned above, more information on more specific details -- [[User:Deshantm|Deshantm]] 23:50, 9 May 2009 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 22:50, 9 May 2009
Reworking
I don't like the status-page. At the moment it's only a very long list and not very informative. For example, there is no timestamp, sometimes no author of an entry. There is no hint to the testset. No kernel-version, only the kvm-version. And so on. I think we've to rework this site. We've to do system-tests with every new release of the kvm on a set of linux-kernels and cpus. There is a nice set of tests with the KVM-Autotest-Suite... I hope someone is reading here, so that we can start a disucssion about this topic :) --Cberendt 17:28, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
I agree with your assessment. I have recently looked at this page and felt that it was a bit overwhelming to get good information from and also know that it probably can easily get out of date, since the people that can help improve it might feel that it is not worth it. Maybe you could suggest a new breakdown, maybe some helpful categories, an approach to get to cleaner, more organized tables? It would be nice to be able to know that a particular guest works on various kvm versions (or not) and scenarios, and, as you mentioned above, more information on more specific details -- Deshantm 23:50, 9 May 2009 (EDT)