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 839547F50 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:05:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 604B5304087 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:05:12 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request Message-ID: <20130327190512.GA22889@thunk.org> References: <5152F2BB.4000709@sgi.com> <20130327134606.GJ5861@thunk.org> <5153217B.5070909@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5153217B.5070909@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 What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) Would you be open to changes which did this? I'd suggest sending the changes as a shell script to minimize the chances of patch conflicts. It will cause people to need to regenerate their patches, but that means now would be the time to do this, when everyone will need to be fixing up their outstanding changes anyway. :-) - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs