Re: [DynInst_API:] RFC: unify the dyninst and testsuite repos

[Jeff Hollingsworth <hollings@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree this makes sense to have as one repo.  The exact why it was 
split is long ago lost to me.
I don't think the source tar ball size is an issue.   I also think 
merging the cmake is a good longer term goal.
The only thing that makes sense is to keep the RPMs separate since there 
could be situations where production machines need dyninst, but would 
not want the test cases.
Jeff

On 5/6/2016 3:21 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
> How would folks feel about pulling the dyninst testsuite back into the
> main dyninst repository?
>
> I mentioned in a conversation about CI on github[1].  Having them in
> separate repos makes it harder to configure a lot of those CI tools.
> Any breaking API changes have to be pushed separately, inevitably
> causing a failed build in the interim.
> [1] https://github.com/dyninst/dyninst/pull/22
>
> I think it would be much nicer for these to evolve in lockstep.
>
> It should be very easy to import it back with git-subtree, preserving
> all commit history.  In fact, since it all used to be one repo, a lot of
> the git objects will even still be identical, so the metadata won't even
> grow much to bring it back.
>
> For the start, we can still keep them as independent CMake projects,
> with the testsuite requiring an installed dyninst root.  Eventually, I
> think even this should be merged though, as I don't see a lot of use for
> the testsuite to act independently.
>
> It will also increase the source release tarball size from git-archive,
> but I think this isn't a big deal.  DyninstAPI-9.1.0.tgz was ~8.7MB, and
> Testsuite-9.1.0.tgz was ~1.8MB, a relatively small addition.  Both could
> be made smaller with bzip2 or even xz, if anyone cares.
> _______________________________________________
> Dyninst-api mailing list
> Dyninst-api@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api