On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 09:46:06AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: > > All xfstest developers, > > > > Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches > > for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: > > > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html > > > > requires all current patches to be re-factored. > > Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it > correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of > using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central > assignment perspective)? Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check script: SUPPORTED_TESTS="[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]" Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
