[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request

To: Zach Brown <zab@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:52:40 -0500
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130327204217.GC16651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5152F2BB.4000709@xxxxxxx> <20130327134606.GJ5861@xxxxxxxxx> <5153217B.5070909@xxxxxxx> <20130327190512.GA22889@xxxxxxxxx> <20130327204217.GC16651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to
> > NNN-descriptive-name?  That way it will be easier for people who are
> > trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new
> > more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes
> > (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.)
> It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names
> to their previous numeric file names.
> But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore?  Would it be
> good enough to start the old tests with something like
> _was_test_nr 45
> that spits out the old test number in the log?
> Just thinking out loud over here.

Maybe a text file containing the mapping would be sufficient.  It's not as if
it's going to grow.


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