[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests
From: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:02:47 -0400
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fb.com; h=message-id : date : from : mime-version : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=facebook; bh=zAMPwDo5uXRfRqLMKgWgg3TWix71ihOuTx24gRPRNqM=; b=D7UlYU7LIspL91WVWI39Znz+FnRjXYnMwcdAvXhIbsyY1SfycozXouXTeyKOD8BltxtH DTm5gP+WH5XqTB0NSjciXXGrj1rUVCkyER76z8txJ8M9pe295a8nEO4jnS5w/FUSvQau wPh4ugdhhs2i0GsVvixOcyAPMUAqKGnFHOw=
In-reply-to: <53738316.20601@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1405141508150.9727@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <53738316.20601@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0

On 05/14/2014 10:52 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/14/14, 8:20 AM, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>> I am wondering whether you're open to the idea of creating separate
>> mailing list for xfstests. It is no longer xfs specific project and
>> even though you're still a maintainer of the project, other fs folks
>> are definitely interested in the development process, but not
>> everyone might be interested in receiving everything from the
>> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx list.
>> To speak for myself I would like to help with review of xfstests
>> patches as well, but I rarely go through my xfs folder
>> unfortunately.
>> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
>> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.
>> What do you think ?
> That sounds pretty reasonable to me.  We've always encouraged submissions
> to cc: the other relevant lists (i.e. linux-ext4 if it's an ext4-specific
> patch) and would probably still encourage that, but even from the other
> angle (keeping i.e. ext4-specific and btrfs-specific patches off the
> xfs list) this sounds like a good idea.

+1 here.


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