On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:47:47AM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:36:10PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > (Test was re-numbered as generic/470, BTW.) > > Thanks! For future reference, does the pattern of us submitting tests with > high numbers (generic/999) to avoid merge conflicts and asking you to renumber > them when you merge work for you? Or would you prefer that we number our > tests to the next available, which may change from submission to submission? For patch that adds a single test, either way is fine, I need to edit the patch anyway on conflicts, as the group file conflicts. For patch or patchset that adds multiple tests, starting with a high test seq number would be better, I only need to edit the group file by hand, not the seq numbers in each test (that can be done by ./tools/mvtest script). But overall, the starting seq number doesn't matter that much. OTOH, basing new tests on top of latest master as much as possible would be perfered, that reduces the possibility of conflicts, as I only need to resolve conflicts within all the new tests. Thanks, Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
