xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request

To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:42:35 -0500
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130327134606.GJ5861@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <5152F2BB.4000709@xxxxxxx> <20130327134606.GJ5861@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
On 03/27/2013 08:46 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
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)?
Yes

If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended?

Thanks for getting this change merged in!!

                                        - Ted


I suggest:

1. They should also be descriptive of the test rather than a number.
2. All lowercase letters separated by _

i.e.
something like
tests/$FSTYP/break_my_filesystem

Thanks
--Rich


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>