From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80467F50 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:46:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E99230407A for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:46:06 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request Message-ID: <20130327134606.GJ5861@thunk.org> References: <5152F2BB.4000709@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5152F2BB.4000709@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Rich Johnston Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs , xfs-oss 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs