Hey, On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > 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.) > > It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names > to their previous numeric file names. > > But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore? Would it be > good enough to start the old tests with something like > > _was_test_nr 45 > > that spits out the old test number in the log? > > Just thinking out loud over here. Maybe a text file containing the mapping would be sufficient. It's not as if it's going to grow. -Ben -- 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
