| To: | Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request |
| From: | Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:46:06 -0400 |
| Cc: | xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <5152F2BB.4000709@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <5152F2BB.4000709@xxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: > All xfstest developers, > > Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches > for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html > > requires all current patches to be re-factored. Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central assignment perspective)? If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended? Thanks for getting this change merged in!! - Ted |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request, Rich Johnston |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Probable Upcoming Sales of Nuvilex, Inc. (NVLX) Cancer Treatments Render Investment in Technology Valuable, Investor's Daily Update |
| Previous by Thread: | Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request, Rich Johnston |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request, Rich Johnston |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |