linux-ext4 - Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1405151207150.2112@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 15 May 2014 12:08:10 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
cc:	tytso@....edu, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, dchinner@...hat.com,
	xfs@....sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests

On Thu, 15 May 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:

> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 07:35:29 +1000
> From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
> To: tytso@....edu
> Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
>     Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, dchinner@...hat.com, xfs@....sgi.com,
>     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests
> 
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:04:47PM +0000, tytso@....edu 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.

Thanks!
-Lukas

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
>