On Thu, 15 May 2014, Dave Chinner wrote: > Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 07:35:29 +1000 > From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: tytso@xxxxxxx > Cc: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, > Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, > linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:04:47PM +0000, tytso@xxxxxxx wrote: > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > >> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I > > > >> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to. > > > > I'm personally in favor of using linux-fsdevel since it might > > encourage more fs developers who aren't using xfstests yet to start > > using it. > > I'd prefer a separate mailing list - I don't really like the idea of > burying general lists in large amounts of specific topic-related > traffic. That way lies lkml - a dumping ground for everything that > has no stopic-related lists and that results in a very low signal to > noise ratio. Comparitively speaking, -fsdevel has a high SNR, so we > should try to keep it that way. ;) > > That said, I can see the value in sending update/release > announcements to -fsdevel, but I'd prefer to keep all the xfstests > traffic separate. A separate list makes things like archive > searching and patch tracking much simpler.... I agree, having a separate list and sending out update/release announcements to fsdevel sounds like the best solution to me. Thanks! -Lukas > > Cheers, > > Dave. >
