xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests

To: tytso@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 07:35:29 +1000
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, LukÃÅ Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140514160447.GA3974@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1405141508150.9727@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <53738316.20601@xxxxxxxxxx> <53738597.70305@xxxxxx> <20140514160447.GA3974@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:04:47PM +0000, tytso@xxxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > >> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
> > >> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.
> 
> I'm personally in favor of using linux-fsdevel since it might
> encourage more fs developers who aren't using xfstests yet to start
> using it.

I'd prefer a separate mailing list - I don't really like the idea of
burying general lists in large amounts of specific topic-related
traffic. That way lies lkml - a dumping ground for everything that
has no stopic-related lists and that results in a very low signal to
noise ratio. Comparitively speaking, -fsdevel has a high SNR, so we
should try to keep it that way. ;)

That said, I can see the value in sending update/release
announcements to -fsdevel, but I'd prefer to keep all the xfstests
traffic separate.  A separate list makes things like archive
searching and patch tracking much simpler....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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