Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux