Re: Why we should avoid new submodules if possible

[Ani Sinha]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:09 PM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/06/2022 13.14, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> [...]
> >>> Come on, this is just a test. We *really* don't care if an ISO
> >>> we use to test ACPI is using an exploitable version of grub.
> >>
> >> Wait, I thought we were only talking about tappy here? The ISO binaries
> >> should certainly *not* be bundled in the QEMU tarballs (they are too big
> >> already anyway, we should rather think of moving the firmware binaries out
> >> of the tarball instead).
> >>
> >>   Thomas
> >
> > IIUC there are three things we are discussing
> > - biosbits source
> > - biosbits image
> > - tappy
>
> Oh well, I missed that part of the discussion so far since the corresponding
> patches did not make it to the mailing list ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
> Anyway, that's just another indication that it might not be the right fit
> for inclusion into the QEMU source tree. So either download it similar to
> (or included in) the avocado tests, or maybe another solution would be to
> have a separate "qemu-ci" or "qemu-testing" repository for stuff like this 
> ... ?

Yes, I think we should have a separate repo for all testing related
stuff like blobs, guest images etc. Curently, some of them are in
personal github accounts which is not idea IMHo.

Bits stuff can reside in the same place.