Hi Dave,
I am wondering whether you're open to the idea of creating separate
mailing list for xfstests. It is no longer xfs specific project and
even though you're still a maintainer of the project, other fs folks
are definitely interested in the development process, but not
everyone might be interested in receiving everything from the
[email protected] list.
To speak for myself I would like to help with review of xfstests
patches as well, but I rarely go through my xfs folder
unfortunately.
linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.
What do you think ?
Thanks!
-Lukas
On 5/14/14, 8:20 AM, Luk?? Czerner wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I am wondering whether you're open to the idea of creating separate
> mailing list for xfstests. It is no longer xfs specific project and
> even though you're still a maintainer of the project, other fs folks
> are definitely interested in the development process, but not
> everyone might be interested in receiving everything from the
> [email protected] list.
>
> To speak for myself I would like to help with review of xfstests
> patches as well, but I rarely go through my xfs folder
> unfortunately.
>
> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.
>
> What do you think ?
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. We've always encouraged submissions
to cc: the other relevant lists (i.e. linux-ext4 if it's an ext4-specific
patch) and would probably still encourage that, but even from the other
angle (keeping i.e. ext4-specific and btrfs-specific patches off the
xfs list) this sounds like a good idea.
-Eric
> Thanks!
> -Lukas
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
On 05/14/2014 10:52 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/14/14, 8:20 AM, Luk?? Czerner wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> I am wondering whether you're open to the idea of creating separate
>> mailing list for xfstests. It is no longer xfs specific project and
>> even though you're still a maintainer of the project, other fs folks
>> are definitely interested in the development process, but not
>> everyone might be interested in receiving everything from the
>> [email protected] list.
>>
>> To speak for myself I would like to help with review of xfstests
>> patches as well, but I rarely go through my xfs folder
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
>> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.
>>
>> What do you think ?
>
> That sounds pretty reasonable to me. We've always encouraged submissions
> to cc: the other relevant lists (i.e. linux-ext4 if it's an ext4-specific
> patch) and would probably still encourage that, but even from the other
> angle (keeping i.e. ext4-specific and btrfs-specific patches off the
> xfs list) this sounds like a good idea.
+1 here.
-chris
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
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.
For example, we started investigating using xfstests to test unionfs,
and pretty quickly found problems. (I suspect the same problem exists
in AUFS, BTW, but I've been focusing on unionfs because it's simpler
and less scary.) The patches to enable the use of xfstests to test
unionfs are still pretty rough, but hopefully we'll get those sent to
Dave once they are cleaned up a bit.
- Ted
On 2014-05-14 16:04:47, [email protected] 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.
>
> For example, we started investigating using xfstests to test unionfs,
> and pretty quickly found problems. (I suspect the same problem exists
> in AUFS, BTW, but I've been focusing on unionfs because it's simpler
> and less scary.) The patches to enable the use of xfstests to test
> unionfs are still pretty rough, but hopefully we'll get those sent to
> Dave once they are cleaned up a bit.
Oh, that sounds interesting. I haven't seen these patches, but I expect
they would be pretty easy for me to extend for testing eCryptfs. That
has been on my todo list for a long time but I haven't spent much time
working on eCryptfs lately.
BTW, you can use this email as a supporting data point for your first
paragraph. :)
Tyler
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:04:47PM +0000, [email protected] 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....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:20:24PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I am wondering whether you're open to the idea of creating separate
> mailing list for xfstests. It is no longer xfs specific project and
> even though you're still a maintainer of the project, other fs folks
> are definitely interested in the development process, but not
> everyone might be interested in receiving everything from the
> [email protected] list.
>
> To speak for myself I would like to help with review of xfstests
> patches as well, but I rarely go through my xfs folder
> unfortunately.
>
> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.
Makes sense to me. [email protected]?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
[email protected]
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 07:35:29 +1000
> From: Dave Chinner <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Chris Mason <[email protected]>, Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>,
> Luk?? Czerner <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:04:47PM +0000, [email protected] 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.
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs