On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 05:11:08PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 04:54:55PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 12:05:33PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 3:04 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:31:18PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 12:58:21PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > > +Roles > > > > > > +----- > > > > > > +There are seven key roles in the XFS project. > > > > > > +- **Testing Lead**: This person is responsible for setting the test > > > > > > + coverage goals of the project, negotiating with developers to decide > > > > > > + on new tests for new features, and making sure that developers and > > > > > > + release managers execute on the testing. > > > > > > + > > > > > > + The testing lead should identify themselves with an ``M:`` entry in > > > > > > + the XFS section of the fstests MAINTAINERS file. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > > > > > I think breaking responsibility down is very sensible, and should hopefully > > > > > allow you to not burn out. Given I realize how difficult it is to do all > > > > > the tasks, and since I'm already doing quite a bit of testing of XFS > > > > > on linux-next I can volunteer to help with this task of testing lead > > > > > if folks also think it may be useful to the community. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing is I'd like to also ask if Amir would join me on the > > > > > role to avoid conflicts of interest when and if it comes down to testing > > > > > features I'm involved in somehow. > > > > > > > > Good question. Amir? > > > > > > > > > > I am more than happy to help, but I don't believe that I currently perform > > > or that I will have time to perform the official duties of **Testing > > > Lead** role. > > > > > > I fully support the nomination of Luis and I think the **Release Manager** > > > should be able to resolve any conflict of interests of the **Testing Lead** > > > as feature developer should any such conflicts arise :) > > > > Fair enough. > > > > Darrick, I suppose just one thing then, using M for Testing Lead seems > > likely to implicate the 'Testing Lead' getting Cc'd on every single new Do you hope to get CC address/list ... > > patch. As much as I could help review, I don't think I can commit to > > that, and I think that's the point of the current split. To let us split > > roles to help scale stuff. > > Note that we're talking about "M:" entries in the *fstests* MAINTAINERS > file, not the kernel... ... from fstests project, for a patch on a linux-$FSTYP project? That's weird to me. > > > So how about a separate new prefix, TL: ? Adding Linus in case he has > > a stronger preference to only keep us at one character fist index on > > MAINTAINERS. > > ...so I'm cc'ing Zorro since he's the owner of the relevant git repo. > Hey Zorro, do you have any opinions about how to record who's > responsible for each filesystem adding tests for new code and whatnot? I think a specific fs test lead is a contributer for that fs project more, not for fstests. The test lead need to report test results to that fs project, not necessary to report to fstests. And a test lead might do more testing besides fstests. So I can't imagine that I need to check another project to learn about who's in charge of the current project I'm changing. (If I understood anything wrong, please correct me:) Thanks, Zorro > > --D > > > > > Luis >
