Excerpts from Nick Coghlan's message of 2013-01-16 12:15:15 +1000:
On 01/16/2013 12:01 PM, Dan Callaghan wrote:
> Right so this is purely a naming debate. But I think the name should not
> be "Beah execution environment" but rather "RHTS-compatible
execution
> environment" or "execution environment for RHTS-format(ted) tasks"
or
> something like that. Reasons:
>
> - All the commands are called rhts-*
> - Beah doesn't define anything itself, it just emulates RHTS
> - RHTS predates Beaker and Beah
>
> I see beah's existence as purely an implementation detail of supporting
> RHTS-formatted tasks (or an "RHTS-compatible execution environment") in
> Beaker. Some theoretical alternative/future harness might also support
> RHTS-formatted tasks, without having anything in common with Beah.
Ah, OK - I had misunderstood which layers were emulating what in the
current setup. I think given that, it's best to just drop that part of
the blurb until we have a good description of the test environment in
the docs to link to. Once we have a suitable link destination for
"RHTS-compatible", then something like "Beaker currently runs all tasks
in an RHTS-compatible execution environment." may work.
+1
--
Dan Callaghan <dcallagh(a)redhat.com>
Software Engineer, Infrastructure Engineering and Development
Red Hat, Inc.