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.) When named test support is done, then we could do this. > 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. :-) There's more than just the rename of the file. group files have to change, there's the possibility that the group list and test list handling will need to be completely rewritten, the way test names are output will need work, the result summaries will need to be reformatted to be legible, etc. So it's not just a case of renaming a file - there's still quite a lot of infrastructure work needed before we can start using names rather then sequence numbers for tests. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
