lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130327134606.GJ5861@thunk.org> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:46:06 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com> Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@....sgi.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 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)? If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended? Thanks for getting this change merged in!! - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists