On Thu, 15 May 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 07:35:29 +1000
> From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: tytso@xxxxxxx
> Cc: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx,
> linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests
> 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....
I agree, having a separate list and sending out update/release
announcements to fsdevel sounds like the best solution to me.