[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5153217B.5070909@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:42:35 -0500
From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
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 03/27/2013 08:46 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 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)?
Yes
>
> If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended?
>
> Thanks for getting this change merged in!!
>
> - Ted
>
I suggest:
1. They should also be descriptive of the test rather than a number.
2. All lowercase letters separated by _
i.e.
something like
tests/$FSTYP/break_my_filesystem
Thanks
--Rich
--
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