From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4ED77F50 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:42:31 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5153217B.5070909@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:42:35 -0500 From: Rich Johnston MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request References: <5152F2BB.4000709@sgi.com> <20130327134606.GJ5861@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20130327134606.GJ5861@thunk.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs , xfs-oss 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs